A man charged with sexually touching a schoolgirl yesterday maintained he was innocent, telling a jury the allegations are completely false.

The 34-year-old defendant has denied six charges of sexually exploiting a young person while in a position of trust. Neither he nor the victim can be identified for legal reasons.

The victim told the court last week that the defendant began to touch her inappropriately in 2011, when she was 11, and continued to do so until September 2013.

In the first instance, she said the defendant had “invaded her personal space” under the guise of a massage, while on a later occasion he allegedly touched her inappropriately while teaching her to do push ups.

The victim told the court further incidents took place in August and September last year, with the final incident taking place in late September while the girl pretended to be asleep. She told her mother about the incident, who subsequently informed police.

However, the defendant yesterday testified that he had never touched the girl in the ways she described and had tried to be a father figure to the victim. He also told the court that the victim had been in trouble for lying in school and having “completely inappropriate” conversations with boys on Facebook.

On one occasion, when the victim was around five years old, he said he found her looking in the mirror and pretending to cry.

“Actual tears came out of her eyes,” he told the court. “I told her mom. I thought it was strange.”

Under cross examination by prosecutor Susan Mulligan, the defendant accepted that he had been unsure about the details of the incidents when interviewed by police last October, but said at the time he wasn’t thinking properly as a result of his arrest and being held in custody before the interview.

“I was locked up in a cell,” he said. “I had so much going through my head I wasn’t giving straight answers, but I remember the incidents very well.”

Ms Mulligan detailed several of the incidents, suggesting that the defendant had escalated his activities over time as he became more confident that the girl would not tell others, but the defendant repeatedly stated that none of the incidents actually took place.

And while he told the court that he had warned the girl against trusting men and boys, the defendant denied the suggestion that he only did so to remove any suspicions about his own activities.

Ms Mulligan said: “The only reason you are here is that you violated [the victim]. You cannot admit it because you have too much to lose.”

The defendant responded: “No.”

The trial is expected to conclude later this week.