Day 3: Defendant’s Wife Gives Evidence for Defence As Grand Court Child-Sex Trial Nears Its Close

By Alric Lindsay

The wife of a man accused of sexually assaulting a young girl has given evidence for the defence, as his Grand Court trial approached its close. Closing speeches are expected on Thursday, and the jury could reach a verdict by Friday.

The man is on trial, charged with assault by penetration and indecent assault, contrary to sections 132A and 132 of the Penal Code. He denies the charges.

Over the first two days the jury heard the child’s evidence, evidence from members of her family, and a recording of the man’s police interview, in which he denied the allegations. Today, August 5, 2026, the defence called its witness.

The defence case

Examined by defence counsel Keith Myers, the defendant’s wife — who told the court the couple had been married for 13 years — described her husband as loving and caring towards her and the children.

Much of her evidence concerned the room in which the children slept. She said it was kept in complete darkness at night: she had covered the windows with dark curtains and tape so that, she told the court, “you can’t see anything in there — it’s pitch dark.” The point went to the child’s account that she had seen the defendant in the room.

The defence witness said her husband shared her bedroom and did not leave it during the night without her knowing. She said she slept lightly and woke frequently, and that the bathroom could be reached directly from their bedroom.

She also told the court that the child had, on occasion, said things that were not true, including once telling her mother, falsely, that she had not been fed in order to be given a treat. She added that the child had never told her that the defendant had done anything to her.

The witness further described a meeting with the child’s mother, who, she said, had told her she did not believe the allegation and believed the grandmother was trying to take the child away from her.

Cross-examination

Cross-examining, Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions challenged the account and pressed the witness at length about her police statement.  Specifically, DPP Crown Counsel suggested to the witness that she had said nothing to the police at the time about the mother’s alleged disbelief in the child’s account, or the suggestion that the grandmother wanted to take the child away.

When a copy of the statement was placed in front of the defence witness in court, the witness said she could not read it, telling the court that she was diabetic and suggested that she needed a magnifying glass to read the statement.

The defence witness went further, saying she did not recall ever giving a written statement to the police at all. She said she remembered only that officers had come to the house on the morning of the arrest and asked her some questions, and had returned later to take photographs of the home; she said she had never sat down with anyone to give a formal statement.

Asked about the document, the defence witness said she could identify her signature on it — but said she could not identify any of the other wording in the statement as hers.

DPP Crown Counsel put it to the defence witness directly that she had “made up” her account and had come to court to lie for her husband. She rejected that, saying she was telling the truth and that she simply could not recall the police interview.

The defendant denies the charges. Closing speeches from the prosecution and the defence are expected on Thursday, and the trial continues.