Dr Geiringer seeks costs from Crown

Press, 28 July 1976, Page 2

Dr Geiringer seeks costs from Crown

PA Wellington An application for costs against the Crown by Erich Geiringer. aged 59. a medical practitioner, who was acquitted earlier this year on a charge of rape, was heard before .Mr Justice Beattie in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday. After a five-dav trial, a jury acquitted Dr Geiringer on May 7 on a charge of raping a 20-year-old patient in his surgerv at Kelbum on January 16. In support of the motion yesterday. Mr M. M. A. Bungay (for Dr Geiringer) said the award of costs was at the discretion of the Court, and the question was whether in the circumstances of the case it was fair and right that they should be awarded. Nothing about the behaviour of Dr Geiringer before his arrest brought anything on himself, counsel said. He was not interviewed until 14 days after the alleged incident, when he was most co-operative with the police. He consented to a blood test and a search of his surgery', and did everything he could to help in the inouiry. His co-operation entitled him to costs, Mr Bungay said. There was no suggestion of lack of good faith by the prosecution in bringing the proceedings. There was sufficient evidence for a pnma facie case but had the police investigation gone further a contrary view might have been taken. The salient factors relied on for costs were that when the complainant first went to the police and thev listened to her story the first thing that should have emerged

was that her account was different from the one she had already given to her friend. The police should have appreciated the change in her story and been on guard. In rape cases, the undergarments of both parties were often of crucial importance. but the complainant’s clothing was not taken until the next dav. No attempt was made to obtain the accused’s clothing, that could have been crucial to, his defence. No attempt was made toj take the sheet covering his surgical couch to examine it for seminal stains, nor was any attempt made to inter- ; view persons who might have been at the surgerv at the appropriate time. It had been clearly established at the trial that the 1 complainant was tactually in-. ,correct about the presence oft vaccine in the surgery, as ill was almost certain someone! must have brought it in from] • the refrigerator. ■ The Crown had produced a sketch plan of the surgery! containing no dimensions or! precise details. The defence had to engage an architect! to produce a detailed plan,) and photographs. It fell to the defence also to call medical evidence about: the stains on the complain-’ ant’s clothing. The whole onus shifted tot the defence to prove factual! matters, and at high cost. The accused’s actions could! not he criticised in any way and he was highly prejudiced by the delav in interviewing him. In reply, the Crown pro-: secutor (Mr J H. C. Larsen), said the authorities showed.' there was a tendency to, award costs only in unusual

;-cases. That was settled law ‘•and if a change were to be made it would have to be by legislative action. Counsel said there was no ' discrepancy between the complainant’s evidence and that of her friend Referring to steps taken | to obtain the underclothing and the couch sheet, Mr Lar--1 sen said the offence was alleged to have taken place in the early afternoon and it was not until that evening that the! • complainant went to the; police in Upper Hutt, and not! > in Wellington. ■ The time and distance in-1 volved would have made; nearly efforts of little value; • one way or the other. It was ■ not an ordinary inquiry, as ■ it was most unusual for a doctor, particularly one of the accused’s status, to be the ~subject of such allegations. Before any approach could i ihave been made the police jwould have wanted the re- , .suits of tests by the Departement of Scientific and IndusItrial Research. The fact that no complaint ' was made for four hours 'after the alleged offence! I meant that the police had to: {make a cautious approach. Very little was gained by! •the plans and photographs! produced by the defence.) , {Those produced by the pro-> •secution were adequate. i ’ Mr Larsen said he accepted! {that Dr Geiringer’s reaction! '(throughout had been a reII sponsible one. The defence evidence did: I not add a great deal to the ’lease except to align eminent I members of the profession : and their expertise on the (side of the accused, producing a psychological effect to the i factual matters the jury had Uto consider. Mr Larsen said. ■ His Honour reserved his I decision.