JURORS cleared a man accused of raping a woman after a night out in Chippenham.

The 12-member Swindon Crown Court jury took two hours to acquit Alexandru Dediu on charges of rape and sexual assault.

During the five-day trial, the court heard claims 31-year-old Dediu had assaulted a woman, who was known to him, after the pair had been out drinking in Chippenham on the evening of June 9.

During the course of the night they had exchanged words before the woman got a lift with her mother’s partner back to the house she shared with her children.

As she lay in bed she was contacted by Dediu, it was said.

She claimed he wanted to come round to collect a coat so she left the door on the latch.

She said she had heard him come into the house and use the bathroom. He came into her room, stripped and got into her bed. He was said to have asked her for sex and, when she refused, said he would rape her. He was accused of touching her sexually then pinning her down as he raped her. He told her to scream if she wanted to, she said, but she had remained silent for fear of waking her children.

He was accused of grabbing her private parts and assaulting her again, as well as slapping her around the face. They argued about messages allegedly on her phone, it was said.

It was said he had told the woman’s daughter, who had woken up: “I’ve assaulted your mum” – although it was later suggested he’d said he had raped the woman.

Jurors were told the woman had told her boss and a friend the next morning that she had been molested and later reported the incident to the police.

Dediu, of Westmead Terrace, Chippenham, denied the woman’s account, saying that although he had got into bed with her there had been no sexual activity.

When asked he said he didn’t know why the woman would make up the allegations but suggested it could be jealousy or that she wanted his money, although there was no evidence to suggest she had attempted to blackmail him.

His barrister, Stephen Dent, raised concerns over apparent inconsistencies between the accounts of the prosecution witnesses – including the complainant’s daughter.

He questioned why the police had not had swabs taken from his client and the complainant analysed by the forensic scientists.

Although acknowledging the detectives’ explanation that the scientists said analysis of the samples taken from the woman would not proved the alleged assault took place as the pair had had sex four days earlier, he said analysis of his client’s sample could have shown he did not carry out the alleged rape.

He asked jurors: “Are you comfortable convicting a man when police haven’t analysed the forensic evidence?

"How would you feel about that if it was you or a member of your family on trial here that the forensic evidence hadn’t been looked at?”

In his closing speech to the jury, Mr Dent claimed the woman had made up the allegation as a “flippant remark said to her boss for effect to ensure she didn’t lose her job”.

“There was no way off it without admitting to everyone that she’d lied in the first place,” he said.

“There are many reasons to feel uncomfortable about the evidence in this case. You’ve sat here and watch it develop over the last few days and if that evidence does leave you feeling uncomfortable and unsure then the defence ask you to act on that and find the defendant not guilty.”

His client was a man of previous good character, Mr Dent added.

He said: “He’s certainly not someone who’s familiar with his surroundings and he sits there behind bullet-proof glass.

"I assure you that’s not because he is a dangerous man, it’s just the way the court is structured.”

Prosecutor Don Tait had earlier asked jurors why the complainant would lie.

“Something in this case is inescapable," he said.

"Someone has not been telling you the truth. It’s an inescapable conclusion and I would suggest it would be easily reached by you.

“The defendant would have you believe that he is the wronged party and that [the complainant] has not only lied to you but she’s also lied to the police, she’s also lied to [her boss] and her new partner.

“He suggests that once she has lied to her two friends she had to continue the lie to the police and later lie to you. I simply ask you: why? Why would she lie a year after the events?”