A JUDGE will give his verdict today in the case of a middle-aged dentist accused of three counts of sexually assaulting a trainee dental nurse at his surgery.
Judge Tim Lucey told Cork District Court he needed more time to consider submissions made yesterday by both the prosecution and the defence. The dentist denies sexually assaulting the nurse on three occasions between April 9th, 2008, and June 16th, 2008.
Garda Insp Mary King, who is prosecuting the case for the trainee nurse, said the dentist had sexually assaulted the young woman when he placed his fingers between her breasts to locate her breast bone in order to check the alignment of her teeth and when he put a microscopic camera down her pants to view a tattoo on her abdomen.
The woman had not consented to either actions, said Insp King, adding that a third incident, in which the dentist opened the woman’s tunic so that her bra and breasts were exposed, was sexually motivated and his claim that he was checking her buttons was “simply ridiculous”.
She said that the dentist had said that staff usually wore T-shirts under their tunics but it must have been obvious after opening just two buttons that the woman wasn’t wearing a T-shirt, yet he continued and opened the remaining three buttons despite the woman asking him to stop.
She said that if the dentist really felt that he needed to check how secure the buttons were on the woman’s tunic, he could have asked her to change back into her ordinary clothes or asked another dental nurse to check the buttons.
It too was an intentional sexual assault, she said. Frank Buttimer, for the accused, said that locating the sternum to check on teeth alignment was a recognised technique in some schools of dentistry.
His client denied totally the second incident of putting a camera down the woman’s pants.
He said his client accepted that his opening of the woman’s tunic was “highly imprudent” but it had to be seen against a background of another nurse having problems with the buttons on her tunic coming loose and his client was “fastidious” about such matters.
His client was “somewhat taken aback” to discover that the nurse wasn’t wearing any T-shirt.
Judge Lucey also adjourned a decision on an application by The Irish Times, RTÉ, Examiner Group and Independent Newspapers to lift a prohibition preventing identification of the accused person after hearing submissions on behalf of the media by solicitor Ernest Cantillon.
Mr Cantillon argued that the district court had no jurisdiction to make such an order and cited the decision of Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns in the case of the Starvs Judge Kieran O'Connor in which the media applied to quash an order by Judge O'Connor preventing identification.
Mr Justice Kearns had said that it seemed to him the very limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Rape Amendment Act, 1990, prohibiting identification existed exclusively with regard to the complainant, and not the accused, Mr Cantillon said.
However, Mr Buttimer argued that the media had no locus standiin the case and pointed out that an order prohibiting publication had been put in place by both Judge Lucey and Judge Leo Malone and that they should be observed.