Doctor Permitted to Continue Practising During Proceedings and Ultimately Found Not Guilty of Sexual Assault

Our client is a 31- year old male doctor who resides in Sydney’s Northern Suburbs. 

An allegation was made that he sexually assaulted a female a co-worker, who was also a friend of his at the time of the alleged offence.

According to the complainant, she went back to our client’s premises after they had a night out drinking together.

She claims to have fallen asleep after which our client digitally penetrated her without.

The complainant reported the alleged offence a year later.

A warrant  was then granted by an authorised magistrate enabling the telephone conversations between our client and the complainant to be recorded.

According to the prosecution, our client’s placatory and ambiguous statements during those conversations amounted to a confession, which is known under the law in New South Wales as an ‘admission’.

Police then arrested our client and charged him with sexual assault, which is also known as sexual intercourse without consent under the law.

Under the law, sexual intercourse encompasses any penetration of the female genitalia – including digital penetration; in other words, penetration by the fingers.

Our client was adamant that although there was consensual kissing, he did not at any time digitally penetrate the complainant.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

His position as a medical practitioner became tenuous as a result of the prosecution, but through submissions our office ensured he was able to continue practising in his profession during the course of the proceedings.

The complainant was adamant she was sexually assaulted, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution insisted on taking the matter to trial.

During our extensive cross-examination of the complainant, it became abundantly evident that her version of the events was both inconsistent with what she had told others, as well as implausible given the context of the events on the night.

Among other things, she had given inconsistent versions of the night to persons which – undoubtedly – she did not foresee the defence would uncover and bring before the court.

In the result, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty to the charge.