A man accused of sexually assaulting his girlfriend on two occasions is a liar with no credibility as a witness, a prosecutor told Supreme Court.

Delivering his final remarks yesterday after five days of evidence, Senior Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney told jurors: "I will tell you one thing up front ¿ the accused cannot be believed.

"He has been lying from the start and he's come here and he's trying to deceive all of you."

However, the defendant's lawyer Llewellyn Peniston told the panel his client is an innocent victim of the woman, who, he claimed, made up the allegations in revenge for being jilted.

"There's no such rape. There's no such intercourse that was without her consent...this was merely an extended fabrication as a way of dealing with a woman's feelings which were hurt," he claimed.

The eight women and four men of the jury are due to be sent out today by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons to consider their verdicts.

During the trial, they heard the woman ¿ a grandmother ¿ claim her 36-year-old ex sexually assaulted her in her home during the first incident last year, and stole $40 from her. Among the injuries the woman is said to have received include a slap to the face, kicks to the back of her leg, and bites to her hand and one of her breasts.

When she pressed charges over this, the man is said to have called her three times from Hamilton Police Station after his arrest in an attempt to intimidate her.

He is further accused of returning to her home around three weeks later, despite bail conditions for the first charges banning him from contacting her. On this date, he is alleged to have raped the woman after threatening to slit her throat with a knife if she made any noise.

He is also said to have attempted to intimidate her into dropping the charges over the first incident, before robbing her of $500 after threatening to run her bike off the road and slash her tyres.

After this, according to the victim, he drove his car into her legs although this did not knock her over.

The defendant claimed in his evidence that he did not have sexual contact with the woman on the first occasion, and they had consensual sex on the second occasion.

He told the jury that on both occasions the woman invited him to her home, despite a restraining order against him, and he never deliberately caused her injury. He denies a string of charges in relation to the alleged attacks. Neither he nor the complainant can be named for legal reasons.

In his closing speech Mr. Mahoney told the jurors tthe complainant gave direct and straight answers during her testimony, but the defendant peppered his answers with "um um" in order to give him time to make up a lie and often contradicted himself.

Mr. Peniston began his speech with an apparent reference to rebukes he has had from the judge during the trial over his methods of questioning, which led him to appear frustrated at times.

"May I apologise to each and every one of you for what might well be perceived as a lack of patience on my side, or however you see my conduct," he said. "My client is before this court on a very serious matter...I pushed it as far as I could to make sure his evidence is before you, so please don't hold it against my client, my behaviour." He went on to tell the jury they should have doubts in their mind over the woman's claims, and that the defendant should be given the benefit.

The complainant frequently sobbed during her evidence, which Mr. Peniston described as "an Oscar-winning performance of tears on command ¿ it was a theatrical performance."

While the complainant told the court she broke off the relationship with the man, Mr. Peniston claimed his client ended things ¿ and that the hurt woman reacted by fabricating the alleged attacks. The case continues.