A jury unanimously found a Smith?s man not guilty of nine serious sex assaults after barely an hour of deliberation in Supreme Court yesterday.

An eight woman, four man jury took just 40 minutes to decide that the 43-year-old Smith?s man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, did not expose a 38-year-old Sandys woman to HIV nine times between October 23 and November 5, 2003.

After the verdict, the defendant raised his hand up to the jury members to thank them, but later declined to comment to about being released after 11 months in prison to await trial.

During her hour-long closing statement, defence lawyer Victoria Pearman asked the jury why the couple had sex a dozen times after she found out about his HIV.

?(The victim) said she ?liked the sex. But if she really and truly thought she had the virus ... then why would she start to use protection after he told her like she said he did??

However, Crown counsel Graveney Bannister said that the law ?made no distinction between whether a condom was used or not.?

Mr. Bannister said that the defendant had all but confessed to probation officers ? who had released him in 2001 under a strict provision that he was to inform any future sexual partners of his HIV status ? when he told them: ?It was a rush-rush thing. I told her the next morning.?

In his summary, Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley said that in order to find the man guilty, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant did not tell the victim he was HIV positive.

?This is the most disputed issue in the trial. The prosecution relies on (the victim?s) testimony,? Mr. Justice Kawaley said.

Going over some of the most important evidence, he said, the man had sex with the victim when ?the likelihood of passing on the disease was low.

?There was no suggestion (the victim) was infected. Therefore we must assume that she was not infected,? he said.