A Pembroke man walked free from the Supreme Court yesterday after a jury found him not guilty of the sexual assault of his stepdaughter.

The verdict came after a two-day trial which saw the 11-year-old girl testifying that the defendant "tickled her private parts'' during the alleged incident last year.

After deliberating for about two hours, the nine-woman, three-man jury returned not guilty verdicts for two charges of sexual assault and two charges of sexual exploitation of a minor.

The 58-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, showed no emotion as the decision was announced, but there were sighs of relief from the man's friends in the public gallery who had come along in his support.

Hours earlier the man took the witness stand to present the court with his own version of events. Urged on by questions from lawyer Larry Scott, he explained that he "didn't recall'' any such events happening while the girl stayed at his house during January and February 1998.

Asked if such innocent tickling happened regularly in the household, he said: "Yes, I tickled her and she tickled me.'' "I always did it around her mid-section,'' he added, "but I never did it on her private parts.

"I never took her trousers down and I never touched her for a sexual purpose.'' Mr. Scott went on to ask why he felt the girl may have made the story up.

He responded: "The only reason I can think of is because she didn't want to come and stay with us.'' Monday's proceedings included the testimony of the young complainant.

Man found not guilty of sexual assault She said her stepfather had "tickled her private parts'' on two occasions during her stay with him while her foster mother was off the Island.

During examination by Crown counsel Peter Eccles, the girl stated that both incidents had happened in front of the television on subsequent days and, while they begun as innocent tickle fights, had turned into what Mr. Eccles called "inappropriate touching''.

"Both times I was watching TV in his bedroom,'' the girl said. "He came in and sat on the bed. He started tickling me and then pulled my pants down and tickled me down there.

"I told him to stop, but he didn't stop until he heard my mother coming.'' Asked how the alleged incidents made her feel, the girl added: "It didn't feel right. I was taught about good and bad touching and this was bad touching.

"I didn't tell my mother because I thought she wouldn't believe me.'' Also called by the prosecution was the girl's foster mother who described her demeanour afterwards as "moody and bad tempered''.

Her school counsellor confirmed that she had "burst into tears'' when telling her about the alleged incident and had needed "frequent'' counselling sessions during the weeks afterwards.

Evidence from a doctor who examined the girl showed that the girl "had no physical signs of sexual assault'' on her.

In the end it was the case for the defence that swayed at least the majority of the jury.

In addition to hearing testimony from the defendant himself, they were presented with evidence from two character witnesses.

Both unreservedly testified to the man's "good character''. And one added: "He is lovable, kind-hearted, open and honest. I would never have any hesitation leaving my kids with him.'' And despite a closing statement from Mr. Eccles urging the jury to convict the man based on what he called "clear, unequivocal evidence'' from the complainant, the defence's final argument seemed to have more impact on the jury.

Mr. Scott pointed to the prosecution's "lack of evidence'' in trying to prove the touching was sexual in nature.

"Usually, if a man touches a woman for a sexual reason, there would be physical signs of his arousal,'' he said, "and there was no evidence of this taking place.'' He added his opinion that the girl's foster-mother and counsellor had "created an aura of fear'' in her after she said something had happened.

"This started the ball rolling and it carried on unhindered until Family Services had no choice but to phone the Police,'' Mr. Scott said.

Instead of taking Mr. Eccles' view that one person was telling the truth and one person lying, Mr. Scott ventured: "I think you'll find that in this case there were two truths, but they were different truths.

"What one person felt was inappropriate touching, the other felt it was just an everyday display of affection.'' "I hope you will agree that there is simply not enough evidence that there was any touching of a sexual nature,'' he told the jury.

Puisne Judge Philip Storr presided over the trial.