A high-profile man accused of rape has sought six months of data from his alleged victim’s mobile phone despite objections from prosecutors.

His case was heard in Toowoomba Magistrates Court on Wednesday in the latest in a string of committal mentions to determine if there’s enough evidence to proceed to trial.

The high-profile man, who is on bail and cannot be named for legal reasons, faces two charges of raping a woman in October 2021.

Prosecutors had previously agreed to multiple four-week adjournments in line with the accused’s request for a forensic medical report and a download of data from the complainant’s phone.

Crown prosecutor Sarah Dreghorn told the court the man’s defence had been supplied with the medical report but they were still negotiating over how much of the mobile phone data would be provided.

“(The defence) had requested a full download … A narrower request has now been made but it is still quite wide,” Ms Derghorn said.

The man’s solicitor, Rowan King, asked that Magistrate Clare Kelly either make an order to supply the data or another short adjournment to continue negotiations.

“Ultimately, those communications appear quite important to the defence’s case,” Mr King said.

Mr King had previously requested access to material from the complainant’s phone obtained via the forensic system used by police to extract and analyse the contents of digital devices.

Ms Dreghorn told the court there was the potential for her office and Mr King to come to an agreement over how much mobile phone data was disclosed.

“At the moment the request is for (data) six months prior to the event’s date; (The accused and the complainant) were not known to each other until the date of the offence,” Ms Dreghorn said.

Ms Dreghorn said it was possible that her office would reject those terms.

“I know (crown prosecutor Nicole) Friedewald has already written to Mr King asking for some explanation as to why those messages and communications would be required,” Ms Dreghorn said.

Ms Kelly adjourned the matter until August 9 and told both parties that if the disagreement was not resolved by then it could be resolved via a directions hearing application.