A 57-YEAR-OLD dentist was yesterday convicted of sexually assaulting a trainee dental nurse after a judge ruled that he believed the dentist’s motives were indecent when he opened the woman’s tunic.
John Tait, of Glen House, Upper Rochestown, Cork, was fined €1,000 for the offence by Judge Tim Lucey, who refused an application by Tait’s solicitor, Frank Buttimer, to apply the Probation of Offenders Act which would have meant that he would have avoided a conviction.
Judge Lucey found Tait not guilty of two other charges of sexual assault brought by the State after the young woman made three complaints to gardaí that she had been sexually assaulted by the dentist while working for him between April 9th and June 16th, 2008. Judge Lucey dismissed a charge that Tait sexually assaulted the young woman when he placed his fingers between her breasts to locate her sternum for a procedure to check the alignment of her teeth, as he (Judge Lucey) believed she had consented to the procedure.
He dismissed a second charge that Tait had sexually assaulted the nurse when he put a camera down her pants to look at a tattoo on her lower abdomen, as the dentist had denied it ever happened and he wasn’t satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it had occurred.
However, Judge Lucey said both parties agreed the dentist had opened the woman’s tunic, fully exposing her, but that the woman claimed he was staring at her while he denied that his motivation was sexual, but said he was checking the buttons on her tunic.
The young woman had said that she told the dentist to stop after he opened the top two buttons of her tunic, and he said that she never said stop, but the law held that failure to offer resistance did not constitute consent and he (Judge Lucey) did not believe there was consent, the judge said.
The question then arose of whether the opening of the tunic, exposing the woman’s bra and breasts, was indecent, and he believed that in the minds of most right-thinking people it was an indecency, irrespective of the dentist’s claim that it was not sexually motivated.
Tait had claimed that he expected the young woman to be wearing a T-shirt under her tunic, but it should have been fully clear to him that she wasn’t after he opened the top two buttons. He continued to open all five buttons.
“I can only conclude that this was an indecency,” said Judge Lucey, adding he didn’t have to conclude that the motivation was indecent to find the charge proven but, if he did have to look at the question of motive, then he was satisfied that the motive was indecent. Tait has no previous convictions.
I'M GLAD IT'S OVER: WOMAN PLEASED DENTIST HAS BEEN NAMED
The young woman at the centre of the Tait sexual assault case at Cork District Court yesterday expressed her relief that the case was finally over and she urged any woman subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace to come forward and contact gardaí.
"I'm just glad it's over. My life and my career have been on hold for the past 16 months – it's been tough but I'm glad I went through with it and I would urge any woman who is subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace to come forward. Women shouldn't stay silent.
"I'm pleased too that he is being named by the media – it's not right that he should try to hide behind the protection that the law gives to victims," she said. The woman paid tribute to and expressed her thanks to Sgt Derek Mulcahy and the gardaí in Douglas who investigated the case. The decision by The Irish Times to name John Tait followed legal submissions by solicitor Ernest Cantillon on behalf of the paper and other media outlets.
Judge Tim Lucey had made an original order in December 2008 prohibiting identification of either the injured party or the accused and Judge Leo Malone made a similar order in March last, again prohibiting publication of any details that would identify each party. Mr Cantillon argued that both these orders were spent when the case concluded and he invited Judge Lucey to vacate them. Judge Lucey said that he wasn't sure as to the status of the present order, whether it continues or was spent, but he was going to make no further order in relation to the matter and if the press were not happy with that, they could take matters further by way of judicial review.
Solicitor for Tait, Frank Buttimer, argued during the hearing that the press had no locus standi in the case and he furthermore contended that the original orders made by both Judge Lucey and Judge Malone remained in place and should be observed.
"If these people [the media] want to go and break the law which they are seeking to champion, then we know what they think of the law," said Mr Buttimer, who added that if the media wished to challenge an order they could do so by way of judicial review.