A well-known Canberra businessman allegedly raped his estranged wife at the office of a successful agency they ran together during a persistent campaign to "intimidate, humiliate or control" her.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is also accused of touching the woman inappropriately at her home while he was there to pick up their children.
He denies either incident ever occurred and claims the woman was in fact abusive and controlling towards him.
Dressed in a blue suit and wearing a white face mask, the businessman stood before a jury and pleaded not guilty to four charges when his ACT Supreme Court trial began on Monday.
In her opening address, Crown prosecutor Rebecca Christensen said three of the allegations, including one of sexual intercourse without consent, related to one incident in 2018.
Ms Christensen said the couple's relationship had broken down and the pair were at work on the day in question when the accused indicated to the alleged victim he wanted to speak to her in private.
She said it would be alleged that after the couple left their work stations, the accused "manhandled" his estranged wife and "swivelled" her around to face him.
Ms Christensen told the jury she would allege the businessman grabbed the woman's buttocks and touched her genitals, penetrating her vagina with his fingers.
As the man did so, Ms Christensen said, he gritted his teeth and stared at the woman with a look of anger.
The prosecutor told the jury the businessman then allegedly grabbed his estranged wife's buttocks again a few months later, this time at the house the woman was living in.
"The accused had the same facial expression as last time," she said.
Ms Christensen said the jury would hear from the alleged victim and others, while text messages and phone records from around the relevant period would also be tendered as evidence.
Members of the jury heard they would also be taken to view the office where the alleged rape is said to have occurred.
Ms Christensen said the Crown would argue the accused had a tendency to "engage sexually" with his estranged wife after they had split "in order to intimidate, humiliate or control" her.
Ultimately, she said, the key issue in the trial would be whether or not the alleged incidents occurred.
Defence barrister Steven Whybrow told the jury it was his client's position they simply did not happen.
He described the couple's separation as "fairly toxic" and suggested the alleged victim was in fact "the intimidating, controlling, aggressive one".
Mr Whybrow said he did not expect anyone who was in the office at the time of the alleged rape would give evidence of seeing "anything untoward" occurring between the businessman and his estranged wife.
He suggested they would have known if it had because the workplace had been "a bit like a car crash" you could not look away from when the man and his wife were both there.
"Whenever they're in each other's orbit, you can't not be aware of what's going on," Mr Whybrow said.
The barrister also told jurors they may form the view that everything the woman alleged was simply "projection of her own behaviour" onto the businessman.
He said the alleged victim had been "trying to take lots of money off" the accused in divorce proceedings and was controlling in terms of decisions about the couple's children and business interests.
Justice Michael Elkaim told jurors the trial was likely to take seven or eight days.
