The trial of a man accused of molesting a schoolgirl drew to a close yesterday with the jury hearing closing remarks from both sides.

The Crown alleged the defendant betrayed the trust of the victim and her family for his own gratification, but defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher said the victim’s version of events was inconsistent and contradictory.

The 34-year-old defendant — who cannot be identified for legal reasons — has denied six charges of sexually exploiting a young person while in a position of trust. The offences allegedly began in 2011, when the victim was 11-years-old and continued until last September.

The victim, now 15, told the court the defendant first touched her inappropriately under the guise of a massage, and around a week later touched her again while teaching her how to do push-ups. While she said the incidents made her feel uncomfortable, she testified that she remained silent because she loved him.

However, she said he began touching her again last year and, after one encounter which took place as she pretended to sleep, she told her mother who subsequently informed the authorities.

The defendant, however, told the Supreme Court he never touched the girl inappropriately and none of the incidents happened the way she described. He also said the teenager has been in trouble for lying in the past, and that on one occasion when she was five years old he caught her practising crying.

Making her closing address to the jury, prosecutor Susan Mulligan said the victim had no reason to lie about the defendant, who she considered a member of her family.

“She had no reason to make up all of these things and ruin his life and her own,” she said. “[The victim] wanted him to stay. That’s the reason she kept her secret for so long. She had every reason not to make up stories.”

Ms Mulligan said the defendant had taken every opportunity to malign the victim and her mother while on the stand but said most of the comments had no bearing to the case, suggesting he was trying to deflect from the charges against him.

“She never ever, not once, not in the ten years that the defendant was a part of her life, told a story about him for any reason,” she added. “She simply didn’t. That’s the evidence before you. [The victim] loved him and he betrayed her.”

The prosecutor also questioned how the defendant could remember in such detail events which took place in 2011 during his testimony, but during his police interview had difficulty remembering events that happened a month earlier.

But Mr Christopher said the entire case boiled down to the word of the victim against and the testimony of her client. She said the victim gave contradictory evidence on the stand but the defendant had been nothing but honest, acknowledging that he had massaged the victim and exercised with her when he could just have easily claimed he hadn’t.

She repeatedly urged the jury to re-examine video footage of the defendant’s police interview, which shows how he reacted to the first mention of the charges.

“He was confused. He was stuttering. He showed growing confusion in attempting to answer all that was asked of him,” she said. “You saw the horror on his face when he heard what was alleged against him.”

While Ms Christopher said a defendant doesn’t have to justify why the victim would lie, she suggested that the girl was looking for some positive attention from her mother.

She argued that if the victim was truly subjected to increasingly severe intrusions as suggested by the Crown, the victim would have made efforts to avoid being alone with the defendant even if she didn’t want to reveal what had happened.

“Were the allegations getting more serious to justify why she didn’t take the step one would have expected and told her mother?” Ms Christopher asked. “She’s an intelligent girl. She has to explain why she didn’t say anything.”

The trial is expected to conclude today.