|
|
Allegations of Sexual
Abuse in NZ |
|
|
|
|
A highly-respected member of the community
can still be a criminal, Justice Priestley told the jury at the end of a 4½
-week sex trial of a New Plymouth doctor. During his summing up, the judge
said the six men and six women should use their collective common sense to
decide on the doctor's guilt or innocence. Evidence of the doctor's good
character should be considered by the jury but was not a defence against
criminal activity, the judge said. "People who are active in
churches and the community can still be criminals," Justice Priestley
said. The doctor has interim name
suppression and suppression of other details which might reveal his identity.
The jury is required to bring back
unanimous and separate verdicts on each of 37 sexual assault charges – 34 of
indecent assault and three of sexual violation – involving 12 female
patients. The offences are alleged to have
occurred between 1981 and 2002. The jury retired at 11.15am and
finished deliberations for the day at 8.30pm. It will resume the process this
morning. The judge said the Crown and
defence had offered two totally different arguments. "They obviously can't both be
right." The Crown had said the doctor
acted as a sexual predator in rolling the women's nipples, putting his fingers
in and out of their vaginas, stimulating them, pushing his erect penis
against them and asking about their sex lives during medical examinations. The Crown said some of the
patients had been naive and vulnerable and his actions had been a violation
of trust. The judge said the defence case
was that the doctor was highly regarded in the community and a respectable
family man who would never do such things. In his own evidence, the doctor
told the court he had legitimate reasons for the examinations and his actions
must have been misunderstood. If the jury was left in a position
of doubt then they must bring back a not guilty verdict, the judge said. They must only consider the
evidence they heard and put aside any feelings, such as anger, distaste or
sympathy, they might have about any of the people or the evidence. "You probably all feel
sympathy for the doctor and his family who have had this hanging over them
for so long." Niggles or suspicion were not
sufficient to find him guilty, the judge said. The Crown case must make the jury
sure the accused intended to commit sexual assault and that the women did not
consent to what he was doing. A crime had not been committed if
the medical examinations had been carried out in good faith for medical
purposes. The doctor "absolutely
denies" he had sexually interfered with any of the complainants, the
judge said. However, the doctor accepted he
had no recollection of most of the examinations other than what he could
assume took place. Some files had been lost and
others were not in as much detail as the doctor would have liked. While three distinguished medical
practitioners had given expert evidence to the court, "this is not a
trial by experts, it is a trial by jury". The jury was not deciding on
matters of correct medical practice, the judge said. Doctors who were sloppy or not up
to date with their practice were not criminals, the judge said. There was no doubt there were
various methods of examining women used throughout New Zealand. Some may feel the doctor was
unwise not to have someone else present during examinations, he said. But because he did not, did not
mean he was guilty. The similarity of some women's
evidence needed to be treated with great care. But it was common sense that if
they were sufficiently similar and not colluded, evidence of one could be
used to support the other, the judge said. The jury was given the 630 pages
of trial transcript to refer to. "This is a very important
trial," he said. "I leave you to deliberate as long as you
want." |
