THE jury in the trial of a 22-year-old man accused of raping a child aged between six and eight have heard the concluding arguments in the case.

It is alleged that John Liddiard, of Buttermere, Liden, raped the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, at least ten separate time between January 2007 and August 2009 when he would have been aged 13 to 15.

At the beginning of the trial, the jury heard that Liddiard was convicted in 2010 for sexual assaulting two other young girls after pleading guilty to those allegations.

On Tuesday, Liddiard claimed that, despite his guilty plea in that case, he had never committed the assaults.

As his cross examination continued on Wednesday morning, he was asked to explain why he would have taken such a decision.

“I should have gone through the whole thing,” he said.

“I was really emotional and couldn’t concentrate on my GCSE exams.”

Prosecuting, Tessa Hingston asked him why, in the months that followed, he didn’t declare that “this is wrong, this is a travesty of justice, I never committed these offences.”

She said: “I suggest to you that was the truth and you are now lying to this jury.”

Liddiard’s mother Julie and his father Antony both gave evidence on Wednesday.

They were asked about the time that their son would have had alone with the alleged victim, the arrangements at the house where the offences were alleged to have taken place and they were also asked by the judge, Recorder Michael Vere-Hodge QC, to provide some clarity surrounding the dates of their son’s previous guilty plea.

It transpired that, contrary to his explanation, Liddiard would have already finished his GCSE exams prior to appearing in court.

In closing the case for the Crown, Ms Hingston told the jury: “I don’t say that John Liddiard is a monster.

“It is said that he was a young man with his own issues, exploring his sexuality, who developed an interest in young girls.”

Concluding the case for the defence, Alex Daymond asked the jury to consider the difficult position that Liddiard was in given the time that had passed since the alleged offences.

He said that had it been reported at the time, he would have been far more able to accurately recall dates and other significant details.

“It is an easy allegation to make,” he said.

“It is very difficult to defend and we say there is no meaningful collaboration of any kind.”

  • The case continues