PRESS RELEASE: COURT ACQUITS RAK RAZAM OF TWO CONTESTED STRANGULATION CHARGES
BYRON BAY, NSW — Australian author and filmmaker Rak Razam has been found not guilty of two contested strangulation charges after the presiding Magistrate expressed significant concerns about the accuracy of complainant Kira Sebastyanne’s evidence and identified evidence raising the possibility of vengeance and significant animus towards Razam.
The judgment, delivered following proceedings concluding on 25 September 2026, is particularly relevant to journalists and media organisations that have received, or may be considering, further allegations from Sebastyanne concerning Razam.
After hearing evidence and cross-examination, the Magistrate stated:
“I have significant concerns about the accuracy of the complainant’s version of events. There is simply too great a prospect that her account is incorrect.”
The Magistrate also found that Sebastyanne’s text messages raised:
“the possibility that she was motivated by vengeance, which affects the assessment of her credibility.”
Her conduct was further described by the Magistrate as:
“consistent with her harbouring a significant degree of animus towards the defendant.”
COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
The Magistrate stated that “the complainant was the initial aggressor towards the defendant.”
Evidence before the Court included Sebastyanne throwing at least one plate, pushing Razam multiple times and slapping him in the face. When confronted with text messages tendered in evidence, she conceded that she had written to Razam admitting that she pushed and hit him.
The Court also recorded that Sebastyanne accepted that, during both incidents, Razam had said that he did not want violence.
The Court considered communications indicative of Sebastyanne being extremely angry and “vowing revenge against the defendant.”
During the hearing, Sebastyanne also introduced a serious and previously undisclosed allegation against Razam. Neither prosecution nor defence had previously been aware of the allegation despite earlier opportunities for disclosure.
The Magistrate said:
“It raises real questions as to whether the complainant is an accurate witness.”
Evidence also established that Sebastyanne had used an AirTag to track Razam’s movements and had contacted the owners of accommodation where Razam was staying. Razam maintains that this contact constituted unwanted and intimidating conduct towards him.
The Court further recorded that on 25 August 2025 Sebastyanne pleaded guilty to intentionally distributing an intimate image of Razam without his consent. The material was an intimate video, colloquially described as a “sex tape.”
NOT GUILTY OF BOTH CONTESTED STRANGULATION CHARGES
In determining the two contested strangulation charges, the Magistrate found there was at least a reasonable possibility that when Razam made physical contact with Sebastyanne he was attempting to defend himself and that, on Razam’s account, his actions were not disproportionate to the circumstances confronting him.
The Magistrate concluded:
“Accordingly, I am unable to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the complainant’s version of events is true.”
Razam was consequently found not guilty of both contested strangulation charges. The case is now concluded and no criminal charges have been laid.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR MEDIA REPORTING
The acquittal on both contested strangulation charges, together with the Magistrate’s express assessment of the complainant’s evidence, has direct and serious relevance for journalists assessing further allegations supplied by Sebastyanne concerning Razam.
Given the Court’s findings concerning possible “vengeance,” “significant degree of animus” and substantial concerns about the accuracy of her account, media organisations should exercise particular caution before accepting or amplifying further unverified allegations from Sebastyanne.
There is a material risk that, without rigorous independent corroboration, journalists could inadvertently become vehicles for the continuation of the very hostility and possible motivation for vengeance identified by the Court, particularly where allegations supplied to journalists concern matters never tested in court.
This does not assert that the Magistrate found Sebastyanne’s engagement with the media itself constituted a revenge campaign; no such finding was made. Rather, journalists are now on notice of judicial findings directly relevant to assessing the credibility and reliability of allegations originating from this source.
Razam’s position is that any further allegations should therefore be independently investigated and corroborated, rather than accepted or reported as established fact, and that he should be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication.
The official transcript of proceedings may be requested through the NSW Courts transcript system in relation to the Byron Bay Local Court proceedings.
