A High Court trial involving five men accused of sexual offences against a girl who was 14 has centred on sharply different accounts of meetings arranged after they allegedly met through a dating application. The complainant told the court that sexual activity took place, while defence lawyers argued that some encounters involved only conversation, a refusal of sex or tutoring. All five defendants pleaded not guilty.

Each defendant faces one charge of unlawful sex with a girl under 16 and one charge of committing an indecent act towards a child. The defendants are described in court reports as a primary-school teacher, a land officer, an engineering intern, a firefighter and a YouTuber. The firefighter also faces a charge alleging non-consensual anal sex, while the YouTuber faces two charges of assault causing bodily harm.

During evidence reported on 14 September, the complainant rejected the suggestion that a hotel meeting with the primary-school teacher involved conversation but no sex. She also disagreed with the account put by the land officer’s defence that he had refused her request for sex, after which she left the hotel alone. A third defence case was that her meeting with the engineering intern was solely for tutoring; she rejected that too.

The complainant said the encounters did not involve money and that she believed sex could help maintain friendships. The detail emerged during questioning about the meeting involving the engineering intern, whose defence suggested that the pair had agreed she would have sex in exchange for tutoring before putting the case that the meeting was only for lessons.

She also testified that the primary-school teacher asked her to wear a dog collar and gag during sex. She said she felt embarrassed but complied because she believed the items would not harm her. Defence counsel challenged her failure to mention them in her first statement; she said she had focused then on describing the sexual acts and did not regard the collar as part of the sexual activity.

Further evidence reported on 15 September concerned the firefighter. The complainant said she had oral, vaginal and anal sex with him in a hotel room, but acknowledged being confused about whether they left together or separately. His defence disputed that anal sex had occurred, and she rejected that claim.

The trial was continuing in the High Court, with the competing accounts still before the court for determination.