A man allegedly beat his ex-partner’s head repeatedly against the ground after arriving at her home and being refused sex, the High Court heard today.
Prosecutors claimed the 43-year-old defendant also punched and kicked the woman before thrusting his hand inside her underwear.
He denies charges of burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threats to kill and sexual assault over an incident at her address in Bangor, Co Down earlier this month.
The man, who cannot be named to protect his former girlfriend’s identity, was refused bail.
Crown lawyer Mark Conlon claimed the accused turned up at the house in an intoxicated state on January 6 and forced his way into the hallway.
“He allegedly asked her for sex, which she declined, and then became irate, grabbing and throwing her down on the floor,” counsel said.
According to the prosecution he smashed her mobile phone, grabbed her by the hair and struck her head off the wall multiple times.
She begged the defendant to stop and provided £20 in an attempt to appease him, it was contended.
“The assault allegedly continued, however, by punching and kicking her, and striking her head off the ground approximately six times,” Mr Conlon submitted.
“He is then alleged to have pulled her jeans open and placed his hand inside her underwear.”
The man left the house at that stage, the court heard, with his ex-partner locking herself into a bedroom and contacting police.
She sustained facial bruising and had a clump of hair pulled out of her head in the suspected attack.
During police interviews the accused claimed the woman had discovered pornography on his phone and thrown him out the previous day.
“He said he returned to the property to collect medication and that the complainant had ‘exploded’,” Mr Conlon added.
The alleged offences were committed in breach of conditions which prohibited contact with the woman.
Denying bail, Lord Justice Maguire cited the lack of any suitable address.
He said: “If he wants to live in France or England that’s the sort of arrangement that might be possible for the court to regard as sufficiently far away.”