Tristan James Kent's account of the January 12 domestic dispute and its aftermath came under scrutiny in Wollongong Local Court Wednesday, day three of Kent's bid to quash the charges against him on grounds of self-defence.

The 29-year-old told the court his shock over the incident and the "traumatising" nature of his interactions with police were in part to blame for inconsistencies between his police statements and his sworn evidence in court, including his then-claims that the woman repeatedly physically blocked his attempts to leave his appartment.

Read more: Bunnings fraudster freed after $3605 spending spree with other people's trade cards

Kent admits he clamped down on the woman's ear, maiming her, but says this was in response to her "squeezing, pulling and twisting" his genitals.

The woman has acknowledged she earlier bit Kent. In court Wednesday, Kent said this was what made him think of biting as a response when the 19-year-old later took him in an "excrutiating" hold.

The court was shown three short videos filmed by Kent on the night, at different stages of an argument that lasted more than two hours.

Kent claims the footage supports several of his claims: that he repeatedly asked the woman to leave, that she damaged his apartment and that - in singing and dancing in the kitchen - she had no intentions of leaving as requested.

But in cross-examination prosecutor Richard Novatin noted very different details at odds with Kents claim to have acted out of fear: the woman's own phone propped up to film Kent; her attempts to leave through a deadlocked front door (who locked the door is in dispute), her walking away from Kent or - in another of the videos - being surprised by his entry into the room and her own claim, just audible: "I recorded you grabbing me by the throat".

The court heard their argument reached its bloody climax soon after Kent confiscated the woman's phone.

Read more: Lake Heights worker stole $23k from employer to fund gambling habit

"I stated to her that I'd return it to her once she'd packed her belongings in the car, because it had been two hours [since he'd first asked her to leave] at that point," Kent told the court.

Kent denied he was slurring his words in the video and that he was more drunk than he had admitted.

"You bit her so hard because of your intoxication, your level of anger and frustration," Sgt Novatin said.

"No, that's not how it happened."

"You bit that hard that it removed a large portion of her ear, from her earlobe to the top of what I believe is called the helix."

"I did, but it didn't happen the way you said and I didn't do it intentionally. I never wanted to hurt her and I think that's quite evident."

The hearing resumes Friday.