A 34-year-old man yesterday denied having a sexual relationship with his underage niece.

The Devonshire Parish man faces three charges of having unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 14.

He is also charged with four counts of sexual exploitation of a young person -- sexually touching her body or inviting to be touched in a sexual manner.

All of the offences are alleged to have taken place between August, 1995 to July, 1996.

The names of the defendant, complainant and her family cannot be disclosed for legal reasons.

Yesterday, the seven-man, five-woman Supreme Court jury heard from the girl after Chief Justice Austin Ward cleared the court of spectators.

Dressed in school uniform, she told the jury she began a relationship with the defendant when she was aged 12 in August, 1995.

She said she first had sexual intercourse with him in January, 1996.

But the fourth-year high-school student became increasingly agitated as she detailed the sexual acts.

"I really don't want to be up here because he is right there looking at me,'' she told Mr. Justice Ward.

A screen was later set up so the defendant could not be seen from the witness stand.

She went on to tell the court she met the defendant after school on January 3, 1996.

According to the girl, the two spent ten to 15 minutes in the man's car "touching and talking''.

"He told me he wanted to make love to me, but I couldn't say anything afterward because he would get in trouble,'' she said.

She declined a ride home with the man because he would not provide a lift for her friend.

But she met him later that same afternoon and accepted a ride to his house.

She said at the house she performed oral sex on the defendant and then had sexual intercourse.

She also recounted two later sexual acts which allegedly took place between January 14 and June 10, and June 11 and July 1 in 1996.

All the acts are alleged to have taken place in the man's home.

Earlier, the complainant's mother testified she was told by her daughter's former employer that the girl had been telling co-workers about sexual activity.

The mother of four confronted her daughter that evening. And she filed a complaint with the Police later the same day.

Under cross-examination by lawyer Archibald Warner, the mother acknowledged she had experienced difficulty during her daughter's adolescence.

She also said her daughter had received psychological and psychiatric counselling from the beginning of 1995.

But she denied her daughter's problems were severe.

She also said before October, 1995 there were no problems that required professional interference.

"The reason I sought counselling was because her behaviour had changed,'' she said. "I became suspicious that something was going on between her and the defendant. She had too much information about him and his lifestyle.'' During a counselling session in October, her daughter said the defendant had kissed her.

A complaint was filed with the Police, but later dismissed.

The alleged incident took place in the same month the defendant married the girl's aunt.

Mr. Warner suggested the girl suffered emotional problems before the time of her alleged relationship.

He also suggested that her obsession with the defendant may have given rise to fantasising about him and fabricating the alleged sexual acts.

Charlene Scott and Patrick Doherty represent the Crown. The trial continues today.