A witness in a rape trial has been repeatedly challenged over contradictions in what she told police and what she told the court.

While the witness told the court that she saw one defendant receive oral sex from the 14-year-old victim, she told police the defendant hadn’t touched the girl.

A total of four defendants — all aged between 19 and 21 — have denied charges of serious sexual assault in connection to an incident on July 27 last year, while one has been further charged with supplying the victim with alcohol in order to use her for sexual purposes.

The victim told the court last week she was coerced by the men into drinking liquor in the back yard of one of the defendant’s homes. She said she was subsequently raped by two of the accused, while an unnamed male not before the court forced her to perform oral sex.

The incident was witnessed by a friend, who told the court under oath this week that she witnessed the victim having sex with one defendant and performing oral sex on two others while crying.

Neither the defendants, victim, nor the witness can be identified for legal reasons.

As the trial continued yesterday, the witness was questioned by defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher about inconsistencies between her statement to police, recorded two days after the incident, and her testimony before the courts.

While the witness had told the court that defendant B and defendant C had both received oral sex during the attack, she repeatedly told police that defendant B had no sexual contact with the girl.

Asked by Ms Christopher why she had not mentioned defendant B’s alleged role in the incident until a subsequent statement made this month, she said the defendant had told him he didn’t do anything.

Under continued questioning, the witness said she had spoken with the defendant on the evening of the attack, after the incident took place, but she “couldn’t remember at the time”.

“But hadn’t he just had oral sex with her himself?” Ms Christopher asked.

When the witness answered that he had, Ms Christopher said: “So you specifically recall him saying he didn’t touch her. You don’t remember yourself saying ‘I just saw you having oral sex with her. What are you talking about?’”

“No,” the witness responded.

The teenager said she only recalled that defendant B had received oral sex later because she was able to “get some rest and think about it”, explaining that defendant B was the only one at the scene wearing a red shirt.

She agreed that she made this month’s statement mentioning defendant B’s role after speaking with prosecutors, but said she cannot recall who brought up the topic of the defendant.

“I think they made me go over my paper, this statement,” she said. “I had homework — to go over my paper and all the other ones and go over anything that needs to be changed.”

The lawyer also questioned the witness about defendant C, saying that she had not mentioned him by name at all during her police statement. After reading through the statement, the witness agreed.

Ms Christopher repeatedly suggested that the witness was not there when the incident happened at all, and she was making up her story based on what she was told by the victim, but the witness replied: “I saw everything.”

The trial is set to continue on Monday.