Police and the complainant in the case had conspired against him.

The allegations came as Crown counsel Sandra Bacchus questioned the 25-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, on discrepancies between several statements he gave to the Police just after the alleged incident last March and his testimony to the court.

On Thursday, the six-man, six-woman Supreme Court jury heard defence lawyer Patricia Harvey-Burch call the defendant to the stand as the first witness in the case.

Prompted by her questions, he proceeded to deny many of the events that the 38-year-old complainant testified to, saying that he did not threaten her and did not use physical force in having intercourse with her.

He added: "I believed she was consenting to sex. She didn't give me any reason to think otherwise.'' But during Friday's cross-examination of the witness, Ms Bacchus pointed to several inconsistencies between his statements to Police and his testimony.

"You told the court that you think the complainant was consenting,'' she noted. "But in the statements you gave to the Police, you said she said: `No, don't do that. I don't want this.''' Ms Bacchus also pointed out that the defendant had never said the complainant had "rubbed back'' on him in his statements.

"I submit that you were lying when you told the court this yesterday,'' she said on Friday.

It was also revealed that the defendant had not described the complainant as "paranoid and high on cocaine'' in his Police statements.

To this, the defendant said: "They never asked me questions about those things though. I think the Police and her were in on it together, that they conspired against me.'' Ms Bacchus continued: "Earlier the court heard evidence from a Police officer who described your demeanour as you answered the door as `calm' and you said to them `I know what this is for'.

"But in your testimony to the court yesterday, you said you were "shocked'' when they knocked on the door.

"I submit that you knew you had done something wrong the night before and expected to be arrested for sexual assault.'' Referring to allegations that the defendant stole two gold earrings from the complainant, Ms Bacchus pointed out that he had been unemployed for two months previously and suggested that he "saw the earrings were gold and snatched them off her ears''.

Finally, the defendant was asked if the complainant had asked for any payment in drugs after finishing having sex with him.

He said: "She didn't. That's what made me think she was maybe working for the Police because she didn't ask for any payment.'' Also called to the witness stand was P.c. Gladwina O'Mara, who accompanied the complainant to the hospital for medical examination hours after the incident took place.

She testified that the Sandys Parish woman had appeared "calm'' throughout the entire journey there and back and that, although she had given her a "looking over'' for injuries, she "did not see one visible mark on her''.

The beginning of Friday's session was delayed because Ms Harvey-Burch, suffering from laryngitis, asked if she could make use of a public address system.

Puisne Judge Philip Storr allowed a recess and court clerk Nathaniel Turner arranged for a system to be set up.

Ms Harvey-Burch later told The Royal Gazette the Supreme Court was in "dire need'' for such a system to be ready for use at any time.

The trial will continue on Monday morning.