British rapper Andres Felipe Valencia Barrientos, known professionally as Yung Filly, has been found guilty of assault but acquitted of rape following an incident during his 2024 Australian tour. The charges stemmed from an encounter with a 20-year-old woman at a hotel in Perth after a performance at a nightclub near Hillary’s Boat Harbour.

Barrientos faced six counts of sexual assault, three counts of assault, and one count of choking related to the incident. The jury convicted him of assault involving biting the woman’s face and neck and striking her breast hard enough to cause an open wound. However, he was acquitted of three rape charges, three counts of sexual assault due to a hung jury, and the single charge of choking. The jury was discharged on the counts where no majority verdict was reached.

During closing arguments, prosecutor Danielle Clarke described Barrientos as an “entitled man” who showed little regard for the woman, who was eager to meet him. Clarke contended the assaults followed the woman’s enthusiastic desire to meet the rapper.

In contrast, Barrientos’s defense lawyer, David Edwardson, argued that their sexual encounter was consensual when it began. He maintained the court’s role was not to pass moral judgment but to evaluate whether the alleged violence and sexual acts occurred as described by the woman. Edwardson asserted that the claim of a power imbalance did not equate to non-consensual activity and that the nine-year age difference was irrelevant since the woman was an adult.

Edwardson criticized the prosecution’s investigation, noting a lack of critical evidence and failure to interview key witnesses who spoke with the woman after the alleged incident. He also pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony, including an instance after the encounter when Barrientos ordered room service and the woman requested chips to go, which he argued was incompatible with her narrative of being assaulted and raped moments earlier.

Barrientos is scheduled to appear in court on August 21 for a sentencing mention. The case highlights the challenges courts face in adjudicating complex issues of consent and assault where conflicting accounts and varying interpretations of evidence exist.