A jury will today be asked to decide whether a woman is guilty of glassing a love rival in a nightclub.

In his closing speech to the nine women and two men Supreme Court jury yesterday, prosecutor Robert Welling said Wendy Ingemann had tried to lie her way out of trouble after twice smashing her glass on Tanya Darrell's face and head in Splash nightclub in the early hours of February 10, 2006.

Defence solicitor Elizabeth Christopher argued there was a lot of confusion over what actually happened that night — and that although Ingemann has lied, it doesn't mean she is guilty of the attack.

The jury has previously heard a tape of Ingemann telling Police officers she never engaged in any physical altercation with Ms Darrell in the nightclub.

However, she now admits she punched Ms Darrell in the face after months of harassment because she had a relationship with the father of the alleged victim's child — but denies using a weapon.

Mr. Welling told the jury Ingemann had been using a lying tactic popular with politicians called "plausible deniability".

"Look at how Wendy Ingemann tries to explain to you all those lies that she now has to go back on," said the prosecutor.

Ingemann has told the court she did not think Police would believe her if she told the truth, so she chose to lie believing that eventually CCTV footage would show she had not glassed Ms Darrell.

"There she is insisting that she had no altercation with Tanya Darrell throughout the course of that evening. She was attempting plausible deniability," said Mr. Welling.

Ms Christopher countered: "People will lie for all sorts of reasons. I think Wendy has told you why she lied on this occasion."

Mr. Welling said a number of witnesses, including plastic surgeon Christopher Johnson who treated Ms Darrell, had given evidence which was entirely consistent with two deliberate blows from the glass.

He concluded: "Tanya Darrell on that night received an extremely unpleasant and serious injury. The defence in this case has come nowhere to explain how that injury occurred."

Ms Christopher argued no witness has come forward and said they saw a second blow; there was confusion over whether the alleged weapon was a wine glass or martini glass; and that Dr. Johnson's evidence was "possible this and possible that".

She reminded the jury that when Ingemann was arrested she asked Police: "Why are you arresting me? Why aren't you arresting her?"

Ms Christopher added: "What does that tell you?"

Ingemann, 37, of Wellington Slip Road, St. George's, denies wounding with intent to cause bodily harm, possessing a wine glass as an offensive weapon and violently resisting arrest.

Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves will sum up today before sending the jury out to consider its verdict.