Closing arguments are under way in the trial of a celebrity who is accused of engaging in sexual activity with a 16-year-old girl when he was 27.
The man, who is now in his 40s and cannot be identified, has denied three charges of engaging in sexual acts with the girl between August and December 2010.
Prosecuting counsel Eilis Brennan told the jury the man gave an account which was "unbelievable and riddled with inconsistencies".
Ms Brennan said the only plausible and coherent version of events was the one given by the complainant who she described as an "honest, credible and compelling witness".
Ms Brennan told the jury the prosecution's case was quite straightforward and ultimately the jury would be assessing the credibility of the complainant and the defendant and in that assessment, would have to consider that one of them was not telling the truth.
She said the complainant had key details about the defendant's life in 2010 yet on his account he had only met her a couple of times during the period in question.
Ms Brennan said the defendant was faced with a compelling account from the complainant and had "crafted a narrative" to explain it away. She said in doing so he had "made a few mistakes and a few blunders".
She said they key blunder was describing meeting the girl for lunch in a particular restaurant in January 2011 when he claimed the girl had turned 17 and only then revealed her true age.
Ms Brennan said it was now accepted by the defendant that the restaurant was not there at the time.
She also said the jury would have to look at the manner in which they gave their evidence. She said the complainant was "forthright, upfront and very understated, she didn't embellish or exaggerate and did not seek to do him down".
She said the complainant's evidence was peppered with little details that would help the jury come to the conclusion that she was telling the story from memory and telling a truthful story.
She suggested the defendant's evidence was "somewhat evasive and vague and there was very little detail in relation to anything".
She said he preferred to answer questions by reference to phone records or emails and did not speak like he was talking from memory and "I say this is because his story was tailored to meet the facts and explain things and I say this led to certain mistakes".
She said it was put forcefully to the complainant in cross examination that the defendant would never go into an office stairwell where she alleges sexual contact took place.
However, Ms Brennan said it was "completely incredible" that the defendant would never have used the stairwell when it was a shortcut to a staff canteen in a place where at that stage he had worked for two years.
More importantly, she said, it was impossible for the complainant to understand the layout or describe the stairwell if she had never been in it.
Ms Brennan said "great capital" would be made by the defence that the witness could not point out the defendant's house to gardaí but she said from the outside it was no different to other houses on the road at that time and it was reasonable that she could not point it out years later.
She said the defendant himself had hesitated to remember the address when asked in the witness box.
She said nothing in the evidence precluded a meeting at his home on 14 December 2010 for about half an hour as the girl's friend had given evidence to say she had left her alone at a concert so she could meet the defendant.
The same friend had also given evidence to say the complainant had told her in 2010 about sexual activity with the defendant.
Ms Brennan added that the defendant had "decided to deny everything before her birthday in 2011 and has sought to craft an explanation and he has crafted an account that does not hold water".
She also said the defence was saying the sexual acts did not take place in 2010 but also wanted the jury to consider a defence of "honest belief" as to a person's age.
"The defence say these acts did not take place but they are also saying if you don't believe him on that and you believe it did take place you should accept his evidence that he did not know her age ... that is pretty inconsistent.
"It is trying to have it both ways to say it didn't happen but if it did I thought she was 17."
Ms Brennan added that if the jury did not believe what he said and think he is lying "I suggest if you go on to consider the honest belief defence you will have already decided he has told untruths about those incidents in 2010".
Defence counsel Morgan Shelley told the jury there was "no question whatsoever that there was reasonable doubt on all charges".
He said the defendant had been "exceptionally clear in his evidence" and it was extraordinary proposition to suggest he was less believable because he was pointing to records and independent evidence to support his case.
On the description of the stairwell given by the complainant, Mr Shelley said there was nothing in the description that was different from any office block.
He suggested the jury should disregard that evidence.
He said the prosecution had to prove each of the three charges and if the jury "had a single, rational, reasonable doubt then the case falls away".
The jury must also consider if anything happened before the girl was 17 and if they had a single reasonable doubt they must acquit. He said the jury was not allowed to "skip" any stages and they must if they believe the events happen, go on to consider if he knew her age.
Mr Shelley said he rejected absolutely that they could form a view about his honesty at one point and carry it through to the other.
He said the jury must view the evidence through the lens of the presumption of innocence which the defendant had until the end of the process. It was not enough to think something "probably happened", if there was any doubt they still had to acquit, he said.
He told the jury they sometimes make big life decisions and have a doubt but go ahead anyway adding "you can't do that with someone else's life, not in the context of a criminal trial".
Mr Shelley said the jury if presented with two possible scenarios must opt for the one most favourable to the defendant if the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defence closing argument resumes tomorrow.
