A man who denies raping his young niece in the middle of the night has described a prosecutor's cross-examination questions as "dumb" and "strange".
"I'm getting angry," Antonius van de Zandt said on the witness stand on Monday, the fifth day of his ACT Supreme Court jury trial.
"No shit," the 72-year-old man responded when told he was confronted by a serious allegation the morning following the incident.
Defence lawyer Edward Chen previously said his client had "sexually interfered with" the 15-year-old in March 1986, but claimed his client was "genuinely not awake" during the incident.
Prosecutor Caitlin Diggins called this suggestion "simply implausible" and told jurors the man had acted "deliberately and voluntarily".
Van de Zandt, who has pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse with a child and committing an act of indecency on a child, kept many cross-examination answers to "incorrect", "didn't happen" or "disagree".
Ms Diggins put to the man multiple times his repeated denials of the alleged victim's version of events were an attempt to discredit the woman and her evidence.
"I'm getting sick of you saying that," van de Zandt responded.
Chief Justice Lucy McCallum interjected, telling the alleged offender Ms Diggins was "obliged" to ask the questions, including putting to him several allegations he denied.
"I can also let her know that I'm getting annoyed," van de Zandt said.
The Chief Justice responded: "It's probably preferable if you don't."
Van de Zandt repeatedly denied the claim he was awake when he allegedly raped and indecently assaulted his niece 37 years ago.
"Can't remember ... I was asleep ... I got no idea what happened," he said.
The alleged offender's evidence is that he came home after working at a food and wine festival and went straight to sleep without knowing his niece was staying over.
Van de Zandt on Monday denied that two meetings following the incident took place.
In the first, he allegedly used his "animalistic" sexual desires as a "justification".
In the second, he is said to have told the alleged victim he "thought you wanted it" because the teenager had gotten changed in front of him.
Mr Chen told jurors no one other than the alleged victim corroborated the second meeting, the only evidence of the first meeting came from her sister, and both women had "evolving memories".
Van de Zandt also denied claims the alleged victim made in evidence, like that the pair had an affectionate relationship, that he covered for her when she wagged school, or that he let her smoke.
"Absolutely not," van de Zandt responded when Mr Chen asked if he had cooked breakfast the morning after the incident, as suggested by the alleged victim.
"I never cooked breakfast. Still don't."
During her closing address, the prosecutor described the alleged victim as an "incredibly honest and forthright witness" who made "appropriate concessions".
"She was asked to tell the truth, she promised to tell the truth and the truth is what she gave - warts and all," Ms Diggins said.
"[Van de Zandt] was not willing to make any concessions, even when on their own, they weren't very suspicious."
Ms Diggins said some of the alleged offender's answers were "almost scripted" but that he was unable to elaborate and would at times "shut down" when pressed for further information.
In his closing address, Mr Chen described the alleged victim as a confident but unreliable witness.
"She's honest and really does believe her in her false memories and does come across as confident. You cannot consider her to be a reliable historian," he said.
"Her version of events often stands alone and unsupported."
Mr Chen described his client as an "ordinary, hardworking Australian", whose only criminal history related to speeding fines.
The trial continues.
- Support is available for those who may be distressed. Phone Lifeline 13 11 14; Bravehearts 1800 272 831; Blue Knot Foundation 1300 657 380.
