A Supreme Court jury saw emails, containing sexual innuendoes, between the complainant and defendant in a rape trial.

But the complainant, Mrs X, who cannot be named for legal reasons, denied that the emails showed a physical relationship took place.

She added: "They do not take away what happened to me. I could walk around naked in front of him but rape is still rape."

The defendant has denied the charge of serious sexual assault on January 23, 2003.

The eight man, four woman jury has heard that the defendant, Mr. Y, who can also not be named, and Mrs. X had a close friendship while working at a bank and maintained the friendship once they left the company.

And yesterday she acknowledged that the two exchanged sexual emails during the autumn of 2002.

Though the emails contained repeated references of sexual acts they planned to perform and frequently centred on sorting out their schedule so they could meet up Mrs. X denied that she ever met up with Mr. Y or had any sexual contact with him in 2002.

Earlier in the trial she did admit that the two had consensual sex in early January, 2003, but maintained that the second time she visited Mr. Y's home, on January 23, she was not expecting sex and that the defendant proceeded to violently rape her as soon as she entered his residence.

Throughout the trial Mrs. X has been grilled about the timeline of events by defence attorney Sual Froomkin, QC. In particular he has focused on an affidavit she signed in August 2003, which she used to obtain a Domestic Protection Order against the defendant.

In the affidavit Mrs. X made no mention that the defendant anally raped her and she also said that the two had started having a "sexual relationship" on the night in question before she decided against it and told him no.

But during the trial Mrs. X has described the severe pain she felt as a result of the anal rape and has denied that the two engaged in any sexual acts prior to the alleged rape on January 23.

Yesterday, Mr. Froomkin asked her about the affidavit and why her account of the night was now different.

She replied: "That's not the way it happened. I signed that draft without reading it, the lawyer put the wrong wording in."

She also said that although she made an affidavit about the incident in 2003 she did not make a "formal statement" about the alleged rape until 2006 because she was scared of the defendant — though she said that she made statements to Police a handful of times prior to 2006 but was not sure what happened to them.

Crown Counsel Robert Welling chose not to re-examine Mrs. X at the end of the cross examination. The trial continues before Pusine Judge Charles-Etta Simmons today.