A DENTIST who admitted acting inappropriately by opening all the buttons on the tunic of a trainee dental nurse’s tunic has successfully appealed his conviction for indecent assault.
John Tait (58), Glen House, Upper Rochestown, Cork, was convicted at Cork District Court in October 2009 of indecently assaulting the young woman at his surgery at St Patrick’s Terrace, Douglas, on June 16th, 2008, and he was fined €1,000. Mr Tait appealed the conviction at Cork Circuit Court.
The appeal yesterday heard evidence from a trained dental nurse working at the practice at the time, Katarzyna Kisinska, that she was in the surgery at the time but did not see Mr Tait undo the other woman’s tunic.
The complainant in the case had said that Mr Tait had opened her tunic all the way down so that both sides fell open, exposing her bra and breasts, and that while she could not remember if Ms Kisinska came to work that day, it happened early, before she usually came in.
Mr Tait admitted opening the woman’s tunic all the way down to check the buttons as they had problems with buttons falling out on similar tunics.
While he admitted that his behaviour was inappropriate, he denied that his motivation was sexual.
Judge Seán Ó Donnabháin had adjourned the matter until yesterday to hear evidence from Ms Kisinska.
She told the court that she was in work before 9am that day but that she never saw Mr Tait opening the trainee dental nurse’s tunic.
Donal McCarthy, defending, said there was any number of places in the surgery where this could have happened, such as a locked room, but that the incident complained of occurred in a public area of the premises with a dental nurse moving around the general area.
Mr McCarthy said that Mr Tait’s action’s may have been “indifferent, thoughtless or rude”, but he stressed that there was no indecent intent on Mr Tait’s part and, for the action to constitute a sexual assault, there must be intent.
Solicitor Frank Nyhan, prosecuting, said the incident was inherently indecent.
The fact that there was some explanation regarding buttons from Mr Tait was not sufficient and a juror would not have to accept such an explanation as raising a reasonable doubt.
He said Mr McCarthy’s contention that the matter happened so quickly that intent did not arise might have had some validity if Mr Tait stopped at the second button, but “he continued, button by button by button”, knowing after two buttons that the woman was not wearing a T-shirt.
Judge Ó Donnabháin said he had given this case “very careful consideration”.
“It appears to me, particularly in view of Ms Kisinska’s evidence, that the accused has raised sufficient doubt for me as a juror to give him the benefit of the doubt and I acquit the accused.”