Five men are on trial in the High Court over alleged sexual offences involving a girl who was 14 when the alleged encounters took place. The complainant, identified in court as X, completed her evidence after rejecting defence suggestions about two meetings in hotel rooms.

Each defendant denies one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 16 and one charge of committing an indecent act with a child. The firefighter defendant also denies a charge of non-consensual anal intercourse, while the defendant who works as a self-employed YouTuber denies two assault charges.

X told the court that she had intercourse with each of the five men, either in hotel rooms or at one man’s residence. During cross-examination, counsel for the firefighter suggested that he had decided they were unsuitable and intended to leave the hotel, but stayed after X asked him to remain and chat. Counsel also suggested that no intercourse took place that day. X disagreed with the account.

Counsel for the YouTuber put a different account to X, suggesting that she was menstruating and that intercourse therefore did not occur. The pair instead played and chatted in the hotel room, counsel suggested, and continued behaving playfully after leaving. X rejected those suggestions as well.

The court then heard evidence about a recorded police interview with the defendant described in the reports as an engineering intern and university student. In the interview, he was reported as saying that he knew X was underage but did not know her exact age, and that he had sex because of sexual need and loneliness.

A police officer denied telling him that admitting the matter and paying a fine would allow him to leave that afternoon. The officer also denied threatening him if he did not plead guilty, after the defence suggested that such pressure could have led him to give a false account in the recorded interview.

The trial was continuing in the High Court, with the court still hearing disputed evidence about the complainant’s account, the recorded interview and the police officer’s conduct.