A woman chose not to defend herself while a man forced oral sex upon her.

She told the Supreme Court jury yesterday her former husband threatened to "tie her up'' if she did not "submit to his needs''.

The Pembroke Parish man's name cannot be revealed for legal reasons.

But the 49-year-old is charged with sexual assault and entering a home without lawful excuse.

The alleged sexual assault took place in the complainant's sister's home in Warwick on July 1 last year.

The woman told the jury that she awakened around 4 a.m. on July 1 to find her former husband of ten years had let himself into her room.

She said she did not know if he was drunk but "there was a strong smell of alcohol'' about him.

The complainant admitted to being frightened but agreed to drive the man to his home. She told the court she felt "in control'' of the situation.

Defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher challenged whether the woman was truly afraid.

"If you were well and truly frightened, you would have raised the alarm somewhere no matter what it took,'' she said.

The complainant explained she was trying to keep the peace in her sister's household.

"If my sister had woken up and found him there, all hell would have broken loose,'' she said.

Without changing from her nightgown, the two then drove to the man's apartment.

The woman alleged he "pulled her onto the bed'' and forced himself upon her.

The woman told the court her former husband forced his head between her legs after first penetrating her sexually.

"Wouldn't you agree that at a time like that a man is in a very vulnerable position? A position where a woman can kick out?'' asked Ms Christopher.

The woman responded she would not have kicked out.

When asked why she did not "wriggle away'' she said: "He threatened to tie me up.'' "If I had done anything to hurt him, he would have retaliated,'' she added.

"I felt nothing. It meant nothing. I couldn't do anything. He said `I'll tie you up and you'll be here all day'.'' She firmly denied giving her consent at any time before or during the sexual activity.

Prosecution witness Det. Con. Christopher Graham-Ward told the jury of the events on the day the defendant was arrested.

Det. Con. Graham-Ward said after Police cautioned the defendant, he told the arresting officers: "She was here. Yes, I had sex with her. I'm not going to deny that.

"But I didn't rape her.'' Det. Con. Graham-Ward maintained the officers used the term "sexual assault'' and never the word "rape'' when talking to the defendant.

Crown counsel Charlene Scott later explained to the jury the term "rape'' was no longer used.

"That was then, this is now,'' she said.

The complainant's sister also took the witness stand yesterday. She spoke of the relationship between herself and the defendant.

"He was not welcome in my house,'' she said. "I did not wish him there in my home or on my property''.

She told the court the defendant was aware he was unwelcome from previous incidents.

Yesterday's final witness, Det. Con. David Abraham told the court of the Police interview with the defendant.

"Yes, I love her. I don't know why she's doing this,'' the defendant is reported to have said.

"I don't know what's wrong with her.

"How could I force that girl to go somewhere in her nightgown?'' During summations Ms Scott told the jury to "look at the whole picture of what happened that night''.

"The complainant still saw him as her husband in law,'' she said.

"But husbands can also be charged with sexual assault,'' she cautioned.

The jury was also told to consider all sexual acts as sexual assault and not just the act of sexual penetration.

"Think of what she had to tell you,'' Ms Scott said. "Fifteen of us she doesn't know.

"How many of us would want to share intimate details with strangers?'' "Was her sexual integrity violated? Yes, it was,'' she concluded. The trial, before Puisne Judge Normal Wade-Miller, is expected to end today.