The accused, a paediatrician, faced multiple historical sexual assault and indecent assault counts arising from alleged misconduct during medical examinations of young female patients over several decades.
The court applied the frameworks in W.(D.), Chase, and Handy, and separately assessed each count rather than relying on similar fact reasoning to cure evidentiary frailties.
Convictions were entered on two hospital-related indecent assault counts and one home-visit indecent assault count where the court found the complainants credible and reliable, the accused not credible, and the impugned touching clearly outside any legitimate medical purpose.
The remaining counts resulted in acquittals because reasonable doubt arose from evidentiary inconsistencies, parental presence during examinations, lack of expert evidence on standard of care and propriety of certain examinations, and concerns about memory contamination or parental influence.
