A former policewoman told a court she "suppressed" knowledge of sexual assaults by a superior, saying she hoped the man would stop harassing her.

Defence counsel Richard Hector continued cross examination of a female police officer in a sexual assault trial in Magistrate Court yesterday.

The woman alleges that she was assaulted by another officer - her superior - on four occasions between June and the end of November 2000.

Three of the alleged incidents occurred at his home and the fourth at her home, the court heard.

Mr. Hector spent the day trying to establish that the two had friendly relations before and after the incidents and her story of being sexually assaulted several times was not credible.

She denied, when asked, that they often bought each other lunches and snacks.

And she agreed that she did not immediately report the alleged assaults to her supervisors or her boyfriend at the time, and only made a report to the Police Commissioner after seeing a counsellor in December.

She repeated previous testimony that the accused, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had offered to fix some broken knobs on a dresser in her house, while the two were on patrol duty.

And when asked whether she had asked her boyfriend to fix the dresser, she said she did not remember.

"I am going to suggest to you that while in that car, you never mentioned to (the defendant) anything about dresser knobs being off," said Mr. Hector.

"No, sir. That is not correct," the woman replied.

Under continuing cross examination the woman said she could not remember the exact date the "most serious" incident occurred, nor could she remember whether it was before or after Cup Match that year.

She also testified that she tried to avoid him after that incident, but after a series of questions, she acknowledged that in early November she had accompanied him to the Physical Abuse Centre to investigate an assault case.

"Is it not true that it was (the defendant) who was called and you volunteered to accompany him, having nothing else to do with the case - nothing else?" asked Mr. Hector.

The woman insisted that she went with him because she had other inquiries to make in Hamilton and she was assisting him with his inquiries.

And she testified, when asked, that she did not remember whether she had bought lunch for the defendant that day.

Mr. Hector established that she drove the man back to the station after the alleged assault at her home and resumed her duties and did not go looking for other superior officers to report her experience.

And he attacked her reasons for not making a report - that she had no evidence to support her story, that nothing came out of similar complaints in the past and that she was hoping the man's behaviour would stop.

"Wasn't the semen stain on your dress potent evidence that you could use to corroborate the story you gave us ?" Mr. Hector asked.

The woman replied: "That's correct, sir."

Under further cross examination she insisted she had "suppressed" the incidents believing he would stop.

And Mr. Hector questioned whether she knew of another case in which a police officer was prosecuted for sexual assault and taken before the Human Rights Commission, saying "for two years his life was in turmoil", but the woman denied knowing of the case.

"I am suggesting to you that the reasons you gave to this court are feeble, lame excuses for not reporting something which you had evidence to support," Mr. Hector said.

Turning to Acting Senior Magistrate Carlisle Greaves, the woman said: "Your Worship, because of my character and the type of person that I am, and because I did not report these matters immediately gave (the defendant) no right to do what he did to me."

Mr. Hector muttered that the woman was "making speeches and not answering questions" as the young woman disagreed that her reasons for not reporting the alleged incidents were feeble.

After legal arguments, Mr. Hector was allowed by Mr. Greaves to question the woman on a previous relationships she had had.

She admitted that she had had a child for a former police officer but denied that relationship was ongoing while her boyfriend at the time was away at school.

She testified that her relationship with her boyfriend ended before she started one with a former policeman.

But she could not remember exactly when it ended. The trial was adjourned until this morning.