A teacher accused of a raft of historical sexual offences against students was cleared yesterday of all charges in the Supreme Court.

The defendant, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of six counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault.

While a court restriction prevented The Royal Gazette from reporting during the nine-week trial, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons lifted the restriction after the jury delivered its unanimous verdict.

Over the course of the trial, the jury heard evidence from four former students about a series of incidents that were alleged to have taken place between 1981 and 1998.

The first student, Complainant A, told the court that the defendant grabbed her and kissed her, thrusting his tongue in her mouth as she was leaving a graduation party.

She told the court that days later he showed up at her house uninvited and gave her a gold ingot.

Complainant A said that during the ensuing conversation, the teacher said that his wife was pregnant and complained that he had not had sex in a long time, which she found “disturbing and creepy”.

The defendant accepted that he had gone to the graduation party attended by Complainant A, but said the girl had approached and kissed him, leaving him “shocked” and “awestruck”.

He said he did later go to her house and gave her a gold ingot as a graduation present, but denied making any inappropriate comments to the teenager.

The second student, Complainant B, told the court that she had a relationship with the teacher while she was still a teenager.

She recalled an incident in his classroom in which he wrote down a list of boys’ names, inviting her to say whom she liked, before adding “me” to the list.

Complainant B said that later he confessed that he loved her and kissed her. She recalled an incident in which, she said, he kissed her in a shed at the school and declared his love in front of her friend.

She said that the defendant gave her gifts, that the pair exchanged love notes and that he had discussed having sex with her, but she did not want to.

She said that eventually he told her that the relationship needed to end because his wife had discovered one of her love notes in his wallet.

Complainant B said she was later confronted at the school by the defendant’s wife, who called her an offensive name and threatened to get her kicked out of school.

Another witness said that he overheard the confrontation, stating that the wife had described the defendant as a “weak man”.

The defendant denied any inappropriate contact with Complainant B, telling the court that while he became aware of her crush on him, he never encouraged it.

While he said he did write down the names of boys on the blackboard, he said he was trying to find ways to introduce her to age-appropriate boys and denied writing “me” on the board.

The defendant said he did give the complainant a gift, a stuffed buzzard, but it was a reminder to work on her posture.

He said that his wife had confronted Complainant B at the school after she saw the student put her arm on his shoulder, but that his wife had not used the offensive words described.

The third student, Complainant C, said that the defendant sat her in the back of the classroom, where she was isolated, and inappropriately ran his hands through her hair and over her shoulders.

She said that on one occasion he had called her to the classroom during a break to help her study for a coming exam.

Complainant C said that while she was next to him at his desk, he ran his hand down her back and smacked her buttocks, before warning her that if she told anyone he would fail her.

She said she told her mother about the incident, but her mother did not act until two weeks later when the defendant gave her a failing grade — which was subsequently changed.

The defendant said that Complainant C was only briefly made to sit in the back of the class.

He said that he had been taught to touch students’ shoulders and give them pats on the head to encourage them.

He told the court that he did recall Complainant C coming to the classroom for help studying, but denied any inappropriate contact with the girl.

The final complainant, Complainant D, said she had entered into a relationship with the defendant after he professed his love to her after church.

She told the court that she felt flattered by his attention, but conflicted because of his position as both her teacher and the married father of a friend.

The complainant said the pair regularly exchanged love notes, but eventually he began to talk to her — in person and in online chat rooms — about “consummating” their relationship despite her “mixed feelings”.

Complainant D recalled that on one occasion she had met the defendant at his house where he grabbed her hand, took her to the bedroom and attempted to have sex.

The defendant admitted the affair with the teenager, but denied that he had used his position as her teacher to pressure her into a physical relationship.

He told the court that while he was in love with Complainant D for “a long time”, he did not act on it until she professed her love to him.

The defendant acknowledged that the pair had exchanged love notes and discussed sex, which led to an encounter on the floor of his bedroom, but claimed the interaction was entirely consensual.

Prosecutors argued that the teenager could not give “true” consent because the defendant had abused his position of trust to manipulate her.

Shaunte Simons-Fox, for the Crown, urged the jury not to allow the delay between when the alleged offences occurred and when the charges were brought to weigh against the girls.

“Justice should never be denied just because it has been delayed,” she said.

Ms Simons-Fox said the accusations highlighted the pattern of behaviour of a predator who used his position as a teacher and mentor to take advantage of his students.

“He was not their peer,” she said. “This man was embedded in their community, someone they and their families trusted.

“He was an adult who knew exactly what he was doing and who knew right from wrong.

“He was someone who should have been a source of safety but he chose to do the very opposite. He should have known better and he should have done better.”

Elizabeth Christopher, for the defendant, said that while there was an adage that where there was smoke there was fire, in some cases smoke just meant smoke.

She said that while the Crown highlighted that there were four complainants in the case, the allegations stemmed from media reports about one of the complaints.

“That is what led to these accusations of the other three,” Ms Christopher said. “He definitely had a relationship with the fourth complainant, but that’s what led to the accusations.”

She added that the four complainants also admitted speaking with one another, but the jury had not been shown the e-mails and online messages among them.

“What has been presented has been carefully curated,” Ms Christopher said. “It should make you raise an eyebrow. It should make you feel that these are not independent witnesses.”

Ms Christopher also said that the complainants may have been motivated by money, as a legal action had been launched against the school.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers