|
|
Allegations of Sexual
Abuse in NZ |
|
|
|
|
The New Plymouth doctor on trial
for sex offending against his patients took the stand in the High Court
yesterday. After more than two weeks watching
others give evidence for the Crown, its was the doctor's turn in the witness
box. In front of a crowd of supporters
in the public gallery, the doctor was the first witness called by the defence
yesterday. In his opening address to the
jury, defence counsel Harry Waalkens QC said the doctor did not have to give
evidence as it was up to the Crown to prove each charge, but he wanted to. The doctor faces 37 charges of
sexual assault against 12 women. He has denied the offending which is alleged
to have happened between 1981 and 2002. Mr Waalkens said consent was
central to the case. "This is not a case about
best medical practice, it's about if there was criminal actions. When he
gives evidence, (the doctor) will tell you that he honestly believed that he
had the consent to do these things," Mr Waalkens said. He said the doctor agreed
sensitive things did happen in the bulk of the consultations, because that
was the nature of the consultations. Mr Waalkens said other witnesses
being called by the defence would include the doctor's wife, colleagues,
other female patients and general character witnesses. "At the end of this you will
be left in no doubt that he is held in high regard. He is not the sexual
predator as has been painted by the Crown." Mr Waalkens said what occurred was
what happened in medical consultations. The doctor either did not recall
the consultations which the allegations stem from, or denied they took place,
and the medical records of four of the patients were missing, he said. The height of the doctor's
examination table, the distance from the floor to his groin and the size of
the doctor's hands were among some of the early questions put to the doctor
by Mr Waalkens. Earlier evidence from three of the
complainants was that they held felt the doctor push his erect penis against
their body, including times when they lay on his examination table. The doctor, who denies those
incidents occurred, provided evidence that the height of his table was 81cm
and the measurement from the floor to his groin was 75cm. "That would be pretty
difficult against the height of the table," the doctor said. The doctor also said he had small
hands and short fingers. On Tuesday, the jury heard
evidence that doctors with short fingers would have more difficultly carrying
out an internal vaginal examination than a doctor with longer fingers. "We have 12 patients who have
alleged that you have sexually assaulted or sexually violated them. What do
you say about that?" Mr Waalkens asked. "Entirely untrue," the
doctor replied. The doctor admitted that he was
not good at picking up on physical cues or signs. "I would go by what the
patient says, most often," he said. The doctor said no complaints were
received at the time of the consultations. Mr Waalkens asked the doctor how
he believed he got permission to carry out examinations. "If the patient presents for
a complaint and wants the complaint examined, then I take it they have given
me consent to examine them." A number of the complainants had
said the doctor watched them undress. "Do you watch patients doing
this?" Mr Waalkens asked. "No," replied the
doctor. Mr Waalkens asked if the doctor
had ever deliberately stimulated patients. "Never." The doctor will continue to give
evidence when the trial continues tomorrow. |
