The jury has retired to consider the verdict of David Daniel Roberts, the Pembroke Dock man accused of committing ten sex offences against a child, who was aged between eight and 14.

The offences are alleged to have commenced in 2005 when the victim was just eight years old and according to barrister Peter Rouch, who is acting for the Crown, they continued until 2012.

It is claimed that the child, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was subjected to a string of sexual acts by Roberts, of Park Street, Pembroke Dock. 

These included being touched in a sexual nature, being watched by him whilst she was in the shower, being groped on her bottom, waist and breasts at age that she entered puberty and on one occasion being subjected to oral sex.

It is also alleged that he put his hand inside her leggings as he sat next to her at the table whilst there were other people present in the room.

During her evidence, which was given to the court via a video link, the victim described how Roberts knelt in front of her and performed oral sex.

“I felt his stubble against my legs and I felt disgusted,” she said. “It was just dirty. But I was too young to understand.”

She claimed the defendant played ‘dares’ with her when he’d dare her to pull down her trousers and then take picture of her before daring himself to ‘run around naked like a child’.

The victim also said that Roberts would show her pornography of obese women and tell her that this was how he wanted her to look when she was older.

The victim confided her allegations to a close family member in 2020 and the matter was subsequently reported to the police.

“Why, in 2020, did she feel the need to tell the police?” asked Peter Rouch, for the Crown.

“Speaking in general terms, victims sometimes report things immediately while others wait months, years or even decades. And this could be for a variety of reasons.

"It could be embarrassment, mixed feelings about getting attention from an older person, even sexual attention. 

"It could possibly be a feeling of guilt that they let it happen, or a desire to put it out of their minds, hoping that it was untrue. And also it could be because of the fear of net being believed.

"But maybe they were so young, they just didn’t realise the nature of what had happened.”

Earlier this morning Roberts was called to the dock to give evidence.

Dressed in a black suit, white shirt and black tie he denied each of the allegations. He described the victim as a ‘nice girl’ who was never devious.

He denied five charges of digital penetration, two charges of sexual activity with a child, two charges of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and one charge of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

"The allegations just came out of the blue,” he said.

Roberts is represented in court by defence barrister Nicola Powell, who claimed that were inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence.

“Which parts do you reject and which part do you consider truthful?” she asked the jury.

“People do tell lies and people do make up allegations for whatever reason.

"But once a lie has been told, it’s very difficult to go back. And the more that lie is told, the more that person convinces themselves that it’s the truth.”

But summing up, Judge Paul Thomas reminded the jury that the offences were allegedly committed when the victim was a very young child.

“A lot has gone on since then and it’s difficult for her to put things in order,” he said.

“She told us that even though she didn’t think what happened was normal, she didn’t say anything about it."

At 4.15pm this afternoon, the prosecution and defence counsels both concluded their evidence.

The jury will return to Swansea Crown Court tomorrow morning (Thursday, October 12) to deliver their verdict.