WARNING: This story contains details that some readers may find disturbing, including details of an alleged sexual assault

A British rapper and YouTube personality has appeared in court accused of raping and strangling a woman after performing at a Perth nightclub during his Australian tour.

Yung Filly, whose real name is Andres Felipe Valencia Barrientos, was arrested in Brisbane this week by detectives from WA’s Sex Associates Team who had traveled there so he could be extradited to Perth.

It is alleged the 29-year-old sexually assaulted a woman in her 20s in his Perth hotel room after performing at Bar120 nightclub in the city’s northern suburbs on Saturday, September 28.

The 29-year-old is accused of four counts of sexual penetration without consent and three counts of assault.

He is also accused of “obstructing a person’s normal breathing or circulation by applying pressure to the throat.”

Mr. Barrientos was dressed casually, wearing a gray sweater, and spoke only to acknowledge his name and the allegations against him.

Social influencer status increased

He was represented in the Perth Magistrates Court this morning by top Perth barrister Seamus Rafferty SC, who applied for his client to be released on bail.

Washington police prosecutor Julius Depetro rejected that request, claiming it was an “extremely strong” prosecution supported by video surveillance and photographic evidence.

He said Mr Barrientos was “no ordinary” defendant but someone with significant influence and reach, with a combined following on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok of more than 8 million accounts.

Mr Depetro said this meant that the risk of prejudice to a witness, given the defendant’s influence, could not be mitigated by the usual bail protection conditions.

“This has already made headlines,” he said.

“Given the nature of social media, the nature of people jumping on the bandwagon, given the nature of the power imbalance between the parties.”

Fans in court

Three men who appeared to have ties to Mr. Barriento were in the public gallery during his appearance but refused to speak to the media outside court.

There were also several young people in the stands who described themselves as fans and told the ABC in court that they wanted to hear the allegations themselves.

Mr Depetro told the court Mr Barrientos was a flight risk as he had “no connections to (Western Australia)”.

He said he had only toured in Australia and normally lived in the UK but was originally from Colombia.

He said Mr. Barrientos had access to large amounts of money through income from his media accounts, earning $700,000 from his YouTube and TikTok accounts alone.

“Given his significant resources, there is no guarantee that we can bring him back to face these charges,” Mr. Depetro said.

Acts of violence “beyond what is permitted”

The prosecutor also provided the judge with photos that were not presented to the court, which he said raised the issue of consent.

Referring to what was depicted in the photos, the prosecutor said: “No ordinary person can consent under such circumstances.”

Mr Rafferty rejected claims that his client’s status as a global influencer meant that normal bail conditions were not appropriate and that this was “contrary to the principles that all people are equal before the law”.

He said if bail was not granted, his client could face up to two years in prison in Perth’s notorious Hakea Prison, where he said rolling 23-hour lockdowns occurred almost daily.

This, combined with his client’s effective “social isolation” in Perth, would be distressing, Mr Rafferty said.

Social media ban rejected

He has suggested a $100,000 personal guarantee co-signed by someone who lives in Perth, along with conditions banning him from entering nightclubs, would be sufficient.

In addition, he suggested that protective bail conditions prohibiting his client from posting about the proceedings on his social media accounts would be sufficient to prevent possible interference with witnesses.

He also opposed a prosecutor’s suggestion that he be granted bail, ban his client from posting online entirely and that “eliminating access to social media in the modern age” would be “totally unrealistic,” especially in light of this His client’s income arose from this source.

He also requested that the key facts of the case not be read out in open court as this could prejudice his client’s right to a fair trial.

Mr Rafferty questioned the strength of the prosecution’s argument, claiming the complainant had not raised concerns about sexual assault during a call to a friend at 5.31am.

He said the question of poisoning would be an important issue in the trial.

Judge Tanya Watt accepted a written submission on the matter rather than have the facts read out.

It adjourned the meeting to consider the bail application and will meet again later this afternoon.

Load