A TUNISIAN man raped a disabled teenage boy, lied to police, then claimed his victim was a rent boy, a court heard.
Married Naoufel Jelassi, 36, is accused of twice raping and sexully assaulting the 15-year-old, who has learning difficulties, at his home in Cecil Road, Walthamstow.
Mr Jelassi initially denied the charges when questioned by police but changed his mind after forensic evidence proved he had unprotected sex with the boy.
He then claimed the boy is a prostitute who agreed to have sex for money but then concocted the rape allegation after a dispute over the fee..
Constance Briscoe, prosecuting, said Mr Jelassi had looked at pornography on the internet before going outside and inviting the boy back to his house.
She added: "Jelassi's testimony is a wicked and monstrous lie by a compulsive liar. What he did was completely disgusting. He has been corrupted by the explicit nature of what was on the internet
and wanted to go on a journey to have sex with a boy."
She added: "He was ‘sexed-up’ and after going outside found a boy within five minutes."
Sophie Shotton, defending, said Jelassi had been of good character since marrying a British woman and settling in Walthamstow in 2005.
She said the teenager has both Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder, which means he easily befriends strangers, can make outrageous accusations, is a compulsive
liar and throws temper tantrums when he does not get his way.
She added he stole money from a Chingford school in 2005 and stole a scooter and some food from a nursery and adventure playground during the same year.
Miss Shotton said: "He consented to having sex. There was no force and the boy was able to ejaculate afterwards. He threw a tantrum afterwards when he realised he was not going to make any extra
money.That led to these false allegations."
Judge Inigo Bing told the jury: "You should consider the following. How long did Jelassi know the boy? Did Jelassi know how old the boy was? Was the boy's distress genuine or was it just an act?"
The jury has retired to consider its verdict.