A woman stood wailing outside the Supreme Court holding cells yesterday after her boyfriend was found guilty of sexually assaulting and viciously beating his estranged wife - leaving her with multiple injuries.

Family and friends of the 34-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, gasped and let out an emotional outburst after the jury returned its unanimous verdict.

The Somerset man, who has two young sons from within the marriage, is yet to be sentenced.

Prosecutors Vinette Graham-Allen and Cindy Clarke maintained during the course of the trial that the man had threatened the woman with a knife, punched her in the head repeatedly, before raping her - after she told him that a trip she was planning to New York was none of his business.

However defence lawyer Mark Pettingill claimed that his client and his wife had had consensual sex. The defence conceeds the man did hit his wife once, but did not threaten her with a knife.

The man claimed he was worried about the safety of his children after seeing an online dating agency with a picture of both his wife and the elder son.

The man was also afraid that his wife would leave the country, which she has since done. “We must see whether there is an appeal on the bases of law,” said Mr. Pettingill. “But I think the jury did an excellent job in acquitting him of serious sexual assault.”

The man can be sentenced to up to 20 years for the sexual assault and up to five years for grievous bodily harm.

The family shouted obscenities outside of the court and claimed that he was not guilty and that the now ex-wife was to blame.

The man's girlfriend - who the prosecution had claimed pulled a knife on him - stood at the window where the prisoners are kept, wailing as she called his name.

Assistant Justice Charles Etta Simmons, in her jury directions, said specialist Dr. Monica Hoefert had said the victim had scratches on her back.

Adding that there was a half inch bruise found on the perineum - between the vagina and anus - which the doctor had said is only caused when a woman's body is not ready for intercourse.

In his closing arguments Mr. Pettingill questioned the validity of the woman's statement and the missing time one and a half hours that were unaccounted for.

He also questioned the times that the officers had led his client from the jail to an interview room and when the actual interview began.

He asked the jury to think about the fact that this woman had been beaten, had hugged her husband and then supposedly was raped at knife point, saying: “It doesn't make any sense.”

Mr. Pettingill also questioned why the woman did not bite the man at any time or why she would make him tea and smoke a cigarette rather than run away.

Ms Graham-Allen told the jury that the wife's injuries were caused by a blunt object, that she had contusions and a cut on her earlobe and behind the ear.

She reminded the jury that the man did not notice blood coming from the woman's ear while they were having sex - nor did he notice her bruises.

The case was adjourned until May 1, when a date will be set for sentencing during the Arraignments session.