The 33-year-old Jamaican national accused of sexually assaulting a mother in November 2003 took the stand yesterday.

The man has lived in Bermuda for the last eight years and denies sexually assaulting the woman in the early morning hours of November 16, 2003.

Legal arguments have dominated the last two days of the Supreme Court trial before Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons.

On Tuesday the complainant was cross examined by Crown counsel Shade Subair. The complainant said she ran in to the defendant outside of Swinging Doors night club. She told the court that he asked her to drive him home to pick something up.

She told the court she felt comfortable driving him home, despite the fact that he had asked her to have sex two weeks earlier. She was a friend of his then girlfriend and was not threatened by him at the time.

Ms Subair suggested that the woman offered him sex in exchange for $100 and that is why she went to his home. After the defendant only paid her $50 she was angry and claimed sexual assault, Ms Subair suggested. The complainant denied this version of the events and said she started to cry when the man ?swung me on to his bed and forced me to have sex with him?.

Ms Subair also suggested that she was drunk the evening of the alleged sexual assault, a claim the woman denied. She told the court she had six drinks that evening, four before she went to the defendant?s home and two after.

The woman said she reported the incident to Police later that day.

A family nurse practitioner also gave evidence on Tuesday and told the court that she examined the complainant for signs of sexual assault. She found the woman?s vagina had a five-millimetre tear, which she said was consistent with forced sexual intercourse.

Yesterday, the defendant took the stand and maintained that the sex was consensual, not forced.

He told the court he has known the complainant since 2001 because she buys cocaine from a friend of his. On November 16 he said she asked if he or any of his friends had cocaine to sell when she saw him outside of the night club. He told her that nobody did.

He told the court that after the complainant heard this she offered to have sex with him in exchange for $100. He agreed to the transaction and told her he had a place nearby, he said.

The defendant explained that he took the complainant up to his bedroom in a house he shares with 11 other people and some of them were home that night. He proceeded to remove his jeans and shoes while the complainant sat on his bed.

He told the court that they had a conversation about a condom and the woman said he could have sex with her as long as he did not ejaculate. After six or seven minutes of intercourse she then asked him to ?pull out?, he said. He also maintained that at no time in his bedroom did the complainant state or appear upset.

He told the court that when he walked her to his front door he informed the complainant that he only had $50 on him and would giver her the rest the next day. The defendant admitted to the court that he had more money on him that night and had no intention of giving her an additional $50 the next day. He told the court he did not plan to give her any more money because ?I did not get me satisfaction, did not have sex long enough for a $100.?

Neither the defendant nor the alleged victim in yesterday?s case can be named for legal reasons.

The trial continues today with Crown counsel Oonagh Vaucrosson cross-examining the defendant.