A man accused of sexual offences left court after his trial came to an abrupt and “relatively unusual” end yesterday.

He was ordered to be cleared when the complainant admitted lying.

The Supreme Court heard the complainant allege that the defendant had sexually assaulted her twice and pressured her to make a sex tape.

However, she admitted that she had embellished the truth.

Under cross-examination by Marc Daniels, for the defendant, the complainant accepted that she had lied to her mother, to the defendant and to police.

The complainant also accepted that she had sought to maintain her story out of fear that she could be prosecuted herself.

“You got caught and you knew that this man would not continue his relationship with you,” Mr Daniels said.

“He put his hands on you. He did wrong, putting his hands on you. That’s a fact and he admitted to it.

“Do you accept that you basically told a story because this man put his hands on you, which he shouldn’t have?

“You embellished the evidence of what really happened.”

To each of the questions, the complainant answered “yes”.

The Crown closed its case shortly after the exchange and Puisne Judge Alan Richards called upon the jury to render a verdict of not guilty.

“This is a relatively unusual situation,” Mr Justice Richards told the jury.

“Generally speaking, the facts are for the jury and the law is for the judge, but there are very limited circumstances in which, as a matter of law, there is simply not sufficient evidence for a jury to convict the person of guilt.”

Neither the defendant nor the complainant can be identified for legal reasons.

Before the trial began, the defendant had admitted unlawfully assaulting the complainant in an incident on November 3, 2023.

However, he denied allegations that he had sexually assaulted her twice, stolen her phone and unlawfully recorded her.

On Tuesday, the complainant told the court that she had entered a “situationship” with the complainant in 2023.

However, she said that on October 2 that year, he became angry and demanded that she give him $2,500 or record a sex tape with him, which she did out of fear.

She told the court that in a second incident on November 3 that year, she spotted the defendant outside her apartment building as she let her former boyfriend out.

The complainant said that he subsequently accused her of cheating on him, slapping her to the ground and holding his hands forcibly over her face as she attempted to scream for help.

She claimed that he then pulled her inside the apartment building, where he demanded that she unlock her phone for him, threatened her with a knife and sexually assaulted her.

The complainant said the defendant later left with her phone, but sent her a message the next morning to state that he had left the phone on her porch.

The court heard that she suffered a series of facial injuries and whiplash in the altercation.

Under cross-examination, the complainant accepted that she had continued to be intimate with the defendant after the first incident and that he had introduced her to his family as his girlfriend.

She also accepted that she had told the police that the man she let out of her apartment on November 3 was her boyfriend, not her former boyfriend, and that she had not broken up with the defendant or told him she was seeing someone else.

As the cross-examination continued yesterday, the complainant reiterated that the defendant had threatened to kill her in the latter incident and brandished a curved knife with an orange-and-grey handle.

When asked if she had maintained her story because she had been forewarned that she would be liable for prosecution if it was found she had lied in her statements to police, she answered “yes”.

At the end of the cross-examination, the Crown elected not to re-examine the complainant and closed its case.

Mr Justice Richards told the jury that in light of the evidence heard, in particular the answers given by the complainant at the close of her testimony, he had concluded that no reasonable jury could deliver a guilty verdict.

He directed the jury to deliver not-guilty verdicts to the four charges that remained in the case.

• 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