Lawyers for a Canberra man accused of raping the mother of his children told a court there was "overwhelming" evidence she had been motivated by a child custody battle to make false allegations against her former partner.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
But prosecutors alleged the man, 30, forced sex, controlled and threatened the woman numerous times amid the "domestic violence-feel or unequal power" that marked their five-year relationship.
Defence barrister Grant Brady, SC, said the defendant didn't do what he was accused of doing as he made his closing remarks to an ACT Supreme Court jury on Thursday.
Mr Brady said he would leave the jury with words borrowed from the accused's own response to allegations he raped and harassed his former partner over several years.
"What the f---?" he said.
The man, 30, pleaded not guilty to six charges including sexual assault, rape, act of indecency and assault causing actual bodily harm allegedly committed during their five-year relationship.
His trial has heard the pair started to have casual sex, which was often "rough", in 2010 and went on to have two children before their relationship broke down.
Prosecutor Trent Hickey said in his closing submissions the forced sex alleged in the trial wasn't rape in the way the jury might think was typical, in that the alleged victim hadn't been attacked by a stranger.
"These were occasions of sexual intercourse, within a relationship, that she didn't want."
It's alleged the accused held the woman against a wall by her throat and then raped her one night in 2011.
She noticed bruises on her breasts, inner thighs and neck the next day.
He allegedly raped her on other occasions, and once he masturbated and ejaculated on her back when she wasn't in the mood for sex.
She allegedly sustained bruises to her wrists when she confronted the accused about messages from other women on his phone and he tried to wrestle the device from her grip.
Mr Hickey suggested the woman hadn't told police about the alleged violence sooner because she was embarrassed and confused by what was happening by someone she loved. "He was her world, I think she told us."
He said the jury probably understood the dynamics of family violence could make it difficult for an alleged victim to leave, particularly when children were involved.
Mr Brady said the woman first contacted police about making a statement the day she got a letter from the man's lawyers threatening legal action over custody of their children.
"The timeline is clear and it shows, you might think, the reasons for a false allegation."
He said the marks on the woman's skin from the first alleged rape were "part and parcel" of the pair's often rough sexual encounters and questioned why she didn't break off their relationship earlier.
"Why in the world would you stay with him? Madly in love - really?
"Why did she? Because what she says happened, didn't happen. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense."
Mr Brady said while the woman had painted a picture of a relationship marked by domestic violence and control, text messages between the pair showed she had been able to "very firmly" express her own views.
She'd also denied to police and social workers she had been a victim of violence, he said.
"He wasn't violent. He didn't sexually assault her in any way."
Mr Brady said while the trial had largely focused on the pair's relationship, the jury was there to decide whether the accused committed the offences before the court.
Justice Hilary Penfold is set to give her directions to the jury on Friday.