A man accused of touching up two bus female passengers said he had been brought up to "respect" women yesterday.

The foreign national, who cannot be named for legal reasons, denies sexually assaulting the women by touching their legs.

He denied both offences in Magistrates' Court yesterday, telling Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner he had a "conservative" religious upbringing and that he was at work when the alleged assaults took place.

Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill argued the evidence from the second complainant was not enough to convict the defendant, who is a professional guest worker. The woman claimed he touched her leg three times as she dozed on a bus journey west of Hamilton on December 22, last year.

A week earlier, another complainant said the defendant touched her leg as she travelled on a bus on December 14.

Both women claimed the defendant sat next to them even though there were other empty seats on the bus.

Questioning the evidence of the second woman, Mr. Pettingill said the man had been wrongly identified in a line-up three months later.

He said because she had fallen asleep on the bus, she could have only obtained a 'fleeting glance'.

But Mr. Warner said: "She looked at the man on at least two occasions, and said 'When I got on the bus I took a good look at him because I wanted to make sure he was a decent person'. How can this be a fleeting glance? I do not find this is a fleeting glance. I find that the complainant had ample time and did make a proper identification of the defendant."

The defendant, who has no previous convictions, then took the stand to give evidence.

"This is the first time I have ever been faced with such an allegation," he said. "I have never done it. I am shocked and I am very worried. I have never seen these women in my life, and I have never sat in a bus next to these people. I have never travelled on a 3 p.m. bus, the reason being my employment, the hours of which are nine to five, and I can't leave before 5 p.m. because of the nature of the work I do."

He added that as a result of the allegations he had lost his job.

"I'm not employed now as a result of these allegations and I support a family back at home. I was about to travel to meet my prospective bride and because of the nature of the allegations and because my passport was withdrawn, I was unable to do that," he said.

Asked about his relationship with women, the defendant said: "I generally respect them since my family is a very conservative family, religiously and even socially. I am not a person of such conduct to do this."

He added that his boss was away at the time of the alleged offences and so was unable to vouch for his presence at work on those days.

Cindy Clarke, prosecuting, said: "It is the Crown's position that the evidence of the woman is solid in her identification.

"She spoke of multiple occasions when she had a view of the defendant. She spoke of at least four opportunities where she looked at the defendant."

However, Mr. Pettingill said: "I am gravely concerned about a grave miscarriage of justice here.

"The evidence is not enough to drive your worship to the conclusion that he can legally feel sure that this defendant committed these alleged offences.

"How long did the witness have the accused under observation? I would say this would be a matter of seconds.

"The woman thought she was dreaming, she may well have said 'I was asleep and dreaming'.

"Three months later he gets picked in a line-up. Memories fade. She picked the wrong man.

"We are looking at sinking a young man's life on the basis of very poor evidence," he said.

"This does not pass muster. The question for the court is does the woman's evidence pass muster? The answer in my submission is absolutely not."

Magistrate Mr. Warner adjourned the case until Wednesday to consider his verdict.