NSW Police officer Ankit Thangasamy delivers closing address in sexual assault trial

A self-described ‘pathetic’ man accused of rape told a jury the woman bringing the allegation against him insulted their intelligence with her ‘web of lies’. Read the latest from court.

Senior Constable Ankit Thangasamy has delivered his closing submissions to the jury in his sexual assault trial.

A self-represented cop accused of sexual assault told the jury the woman bringing the allegations against him spun a web of lies and reminded the court she said she was unsure if sex occurred in the toilet cubicle of a Haymarket bar.

South Sydney Police Area Command cop Ankit Thangasamy delivered his closing address at Sydney District Court on Wednesday when the married father reminded jurors he was “pathetic” and regretted his actions but was not guilty of sexual assault.

The 32-year-old senior constable and the woman had consensual oral sex in the women’s bathroom in the early hours of December 17, 2021.

The woman alleges she told him to stop penetrative sex because she was on her period and was wearing a tampon.

Thangasamy, who pleaded not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent, told the court penetration never occurred because of the difficult position they found themselves in inside the cubicle.

Ankit Thangasamy has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault without consent.

He submitted to the court the complainant’s evidence was unreliable and that she lied about him picking her up under her arms and twisting her around in the stall.

He told the court she also lied about telling him “stop” to attempted intercourse and that he removed her underwear, saying she did it herself.

“The theme is that this most important witness has spun a destructive web of lies,’’ he said.

The jury was reminded by Thangasamy how the woman told a police officer in a statement that night: “I don’t know if he had sex with me or not.’’

“My submission to you is that the complainant, who has now on a number of occasions been described as the most important witness in the prosecution case, is a fundamentally dishonest person,’’ he said.

“She is a person who lied to each and every one of you from the witness box, and she has done so shamelessly and she has done so with complete impunity.’’

He told the court the woman gave contradictory, evasive and unsatisfactory accounts to the first police officer to whom she reported the allegation.

“She was caught in a lie and instead of coming clean she dug deeper,’’ Thangasamy said.

“But I don’t think there’s any other way to put it other than to say that her continued lies were an insult to your intelligence.’’

He reminded the court the forensic medical practitioner who examined the woman the night of the alleged assault did not have a recollection of her telling him penetration or painful sex occurred.

He told the court one of the security guards who interrupted them in the stall provided the best evidence after seeing the pair kissing, giggling and because he saw her turn around and remove her underwear.

The Crown prosecutor earlier told the court the security guard’s looks were brief and he did not hear the complainant say stop.

“Just because (the security guard) did not hear it, does not mean it was not said,’’ Judge Craig Smith told the court during his summary.

Thangasamy, a former Holroyd SES volunteer, whose wife has supported him through the trial, said the complainant lied about having oral sex after the alleged rape.

“The idea there could be oral sex after a painful sexual assault defies all logic,’’ he said.

He recounted evidence from two of the alleged victim’s friends after the incident.

“In my opinion she was regretful or unhappy. She didn’t look distressed to me,’’ one friend told the court earlier.

Another friend said: “I thought she was upset that she had kissed a married man.’’

Thangasamy conceded he deeply regretted what happened that night but said he was not guilty of sexual assault.

“What I did was pathetic,’’ he told the jury.

“I failed on so many levels. You might with very good reason view me with disgust, but whatever your verdict, I ask you to come to that verdict on the basis of the evidence and not whatever view you might have about me as a person.’’

The jury has started its deliberation.