Jurors are expected to decide the fate today of a Policeman accused of sexually assaulting three boys.

Yesterday lawyers gave impassioned closing arguments in the Supreme Court trial.

Defence lawyer John Perry QC said the officer was the target of initial prejudice because of the nature of the offences.

He told the seven-man five-woman jury the defendant was a kind man who gave children gifts.

"Do not stamp innocent activities with a badge of an ulterior motive."

Senior Crown counsel Juan Wolffe, however, said: "This case is about innocence lost."

He added: "This case is not about homosexuality or heterosexuality ? it is about not imposing that on a child."

The Policeman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with a total of ten sexual offences including buggery.

The three boys were aged between ten and 11 at the time of the alleged assaults.

Mr. Perry pointed out that the complaints made by the three boys were in a "narrow period" ? between January and February 2002.

He said that there was ample time to complain beforehand considering the assaults began in 1996.

The three boys were allegedly assaulted on different dates from 1996 until 2002.

Mr. Perry said the defendant was a man of good character, honesty and integrity because he was a Police officer.

He added his client had a proclivity towards woman, pointing out the jury had heard from one woman with whom he had sexual relations.

Mr. Perry added sometimes children lied. And he urged the jury to pay close attention to the demeanours of the three complainants while testifying.

He went on highlight contradictions between one of the complainant's Police statement and testimony, calling it "an incredible story".

Mr. Perry posed the question: Why did the complainants not complain about the abuse earlier than they did?

He also questioned why Dr. Bente Lundh left out injuries on one of the defendant's buttocks from her Police statement.

Mr. Perry asked if the marks could have been caused by the medical team which examined the boy. Photographs were taken of the injuries following examination.

Mr. Wolffe told the jury that the three boys met the defendant at three separate and distinct times.

"What are the odds that they are all going to lie about the same thing?"

Mr. Wolffe pointed out that there was a "common thread" in the case with the defendant allegedly buying the victims gifts to lure them in.

And he pointed out that the three boys' accounts of the sexual acts were almost identical.

Mr. Wolffe said it was understandable why the defendants did not tell someone about the assaults earlier because they were confused and scared.

"We keep secrets ? things happen to us and we do not know how to deal with them."

Assistant Justice Carlisle Greaves is expected to give his summary today.