The lawyer at the centre of a sex assault case which sparked a row over remarks by Chief Justice Austin Ward yesterday backed the Island's top judge.

Richard Horseman, who defended a 37-year-old man accused of serious sexual assault and stalking, said Mr. Justice Ward was right to raise questions over whether the alleged victim in the case "had been sending mixed messages'' and if her "no'' was "a genuine no''.

Mr. Horseman rode to Mr. Justice Ward's defence after Paget East MP Kim Young slammed the Chief Justice's closing statements to the jury.

But the defence lawyer said: "Her comments are absolutely wrong -- she has taken one sentence from a jury summation lasting one-and-a-half hours where the Chief Justice asked them to consider whether a no meant no.

"The Chief Justice as a matter of law had to raise that issue.'' Mr. Horseman said the decision on whether his client had a genuine -- although mistaken -- belief in consent was a valid issue in the trial.

And he said: "If Mr. Justice Ward had not put those matters to the jury and my client had been convicted, there is absolutely no doubt that conviction would have been overturned on appeal.'' Ms Young went on the attack in the House of Assembly last week after the accused was cleared of the charges relating to his former girlfriend.

She insisted a woman had a right to say no and to have that right respected.

And Ms Young called for sensitivity training to be given to judges and others involved in the criminal justice system.

She added that one of the recommendations of a Task Force on women's issues was senstivity training in gender bias for judges, magistrates, Crown counsels and Police.

And she said: "I think on the basis of what was reported, we need that.'' Mr. Horseman explained he decided to speak out after the row dominated the talk radio airwaves -- with the majority of callers backing Ms Young.

But he said the evidence heard in the case made it necessary for Mr. Justice Ward to draw the jury's attention to the issue of consent.

He added: "If you consider the facts in this case, this is a woman who said the relationship was over. She said she told him no in no uncertain terms, then admitted she went to bed with the guy. The Chief Justice had a duty to put my client's case fairly to the jury. I can't speak for him, but I'm sure this wasn't his personal point of view.''