The issue of consent will be the deciding factor in the sexual assault trial of a 28-year-old man, opposing counsels said yesterday as they presented their closing summaries in Supreme Court.

The man - who cannot be named for legal reasons - is accused of sexually assaulting a 27-year-old woman in her own bed when he entered her room and she originally mistook him for her boyfriend.

Crown prosecutor Vinette Graham-Allen told the six-man, six-woman jury that common sense should direct their decision.

Ms Graham-Allen said the man has admitted that he is the person who had sex with the complainant so neither his identity nor whether an attack was committed was at issue.

"He said `I did it but I did it with her consent'," she said. "You have to determine whether he has any legal justification for committing this offence."

Over the course of the trial the court heard that the accused man - who is a foreign national whose first language is not English - originally saw the alleged victim and a party of her friends drinking at the Swizzle Inn.

He claims that he was invited back to the woman's house with the group by her male roommate at the end of the night.

After the woman's boyfriend left the house, the accused man claims he went to her door and she told him to come in and began hugging and kissing him and eventually they both took off their clothes and began to have consensual sex. But then she screamed that he was not her boyfriend and should stop, which he claims he did.

But Ms Graham-Allen argued that the accused contrived a trip to the bathroom after the woman's boyfriend left and instead went to her room where the woman was already undressed and asleep.

When she realised the man had a different build than her boyfriend, Ms Graham-Allen said the woman pushed the man's head away to look at him and screamed he should stop but he was already inside of her.

The victim's male room-mate, hearing the screams, came to her door only to find it locked.

Ms Graham-Allen pointed out the defendant had known the woman was very drunk and even admitted to Police when they arrived - after having been covertly called by the roommate - that he had sex with her.

But defence attorney Patrick Doherty argued that the testimony of prosecution witnesses was sufficiently inconsistent that the jury had reason to reasonably doubt that the accused man believed he had the woman's consent.

Mr. Doherty said that different versions of who had shut the woman's bedroom door, whether it had been closed at all and who had invited the defendant to the house all cast doubt.

He said the statements of the witnesses had to be carefully scrutinised. He suggested that the witnesses may be less reliable because they are biased towards the alleged victim or trying to minimise their drunkenness on the night of the alleged assault.

And he asked why they invited a man they thought was "creepy" and who had been staring at them back to the house and why the woman's roommate did not intervene when he saw the accused man at her door immediately before the alleged assault.

Mr. Doherty pointed out, at one point in the alleged victim's testimony she said she thought he had kissed her private parts but later said she may have dreamed the kiss.

"What she says at the critical time is that she's having difficulty distinguishing her dreams from reality," he said. "If that doesn't give you a doubt, I don't know what would."

This morning Assistant Supreme Court Justice Charles-Etta Simmons is expected to give her case summary before the jury retires to deliberations.