Tom Silvagni claims judge made mistakes in rape trial as grounds for appeal revealed

The son of AFL great Steven and celebrity wife Jo has revealed the grounds for his appeal.

Tom Silvagni will argue his two rape convictions should be quashed because a judge made errors during his trial.

The youngest son of AFL great Stephen Silvagni and television personality Jo Silvagni lodged an application for leave to appeal in the Victorian Court of Appeal on January 9 but only released to the media on Thursday.

The document claims Judge Gregory Lyon made errors during Silvagni’s County Court trial, which led to a jury finding him guilty of two counts of rape in December.

Silvagni had denied he digitally raped the woman — known under the pseudonym Samantha Taylor — at his Melbourne home in the early hours of January 14, 2024.

The jury was told Taylor had consensual sex with Silvagni’s friend Anthony LoGiudice at the house but then he organised an Uber and left the property shortly before 2am.

Tom Silvagni claims his rape convictions should be quashed because of errors by the trial judge. Tom Silvagni claims his rape convictions should be quashed because of errors by the trial judge. Credit: AAP

Silvagni then lied, telling Taylor that LoGiudice would be returning upstairs because his Uber had been cancelled.

But it was Silvagni who went into the dark bedroom a short time later and pretended to be LoGiudice before digitally raping Taylor twice.

In the days that followed, Silvagni fabricated an Uber receipt to make it look like LoGiudice had left his home after 2.30am.

He also had a pre-recorded phone call with Taylor where he maintained his claims that it was LoGiudice in the room and said she should drop the case.

Silvagni’s lawyers have argued the judge’s first mistake was allowing the jury to consider the pre-recorded phone call as evidence of incriminating conduct.

Incriminating conduct is actions or statements made by an accused after an alleged crime that suggest guilt.

The judge also wrongly gave jurors directions about how they should use incriminating conduct in their deliberations, the grounds of appeal state.

Silvagni is seeking to have his appeal against the two rape convictions heard in an oral hearing, although a date is yet to be set.

He has not lodged an appeal against his jail term of six years and two months.

The 23-year-old will be eligible for parole after three years and three months.

Silvagni’s parents had previously flagged the appeal, telling reporters their son maintained his innocence and would clear his name.