Dental Surgeon Acquitted Of Assault Charges

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 October 1947, Page 2

Dental Surgeon Acquitted Of Assault Charges

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 24. A jury in the Supreme Court today found Gordon McCallum, aged 42, a dentist, not guilty on eight charges of indecent assault on female patients. The accused was discharged by the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary). Criticism of the police was made by accused’s counsel (Mr W. E. Leicester) in his address to the jury. Counsel submitted that in no case had the Crown established proof of its charges The Crown Prosecutor (Mr W. A. Cunningham) said that it was for the jury to decide whether .McCallum s exploration of women patients’ clothing was assault or a medical necessity. If McCallum followed the practice of exploring the clothing for tightness, then it was an unusual practice among dentists. The two doctors called had said that a dentist or doctor should establish before administering an anaesthetic whether tight clothing was worn. If an emergency arose, of course, it was a dentist’s duty to take every step necessary in the interests of the patient Evidence by a dental nurse had. been that in her experience an emergency did not occur under gas, but in three weeks, while the police kept watch, an emergency had apparently arisen in the case of seven of the 13 women given gas in that period. Mr Cunningham submitted that the Crown witness who told of the actions of McCallum on May 2 had not been shaken in the box, nor had the police evidence been upset by the dcfsncG. Concluding his address, he submitted that even without accepting the police-evidence the jury must not come to the conclusion from evidence of .the accused’s nurses that he had developed a practice of exploring patients for tight clothing. It remained if or the jury to decide whether that constituted assault. It was very important that a dentist should not be able to commit an assault under a cloak of his professional conduct.

His Honor’s Summing Up Summing up, His Honor said the need to have the case proved beyond reasonable doubt was emphasised by the fact of accused’s standing socially and professionally. The case would not be decided on the evidence of good character alone, but the accused would be entitled to have that put into the balance if the jury’s decision otherwise was finely balanced. Dealing with the evidence, His Honor said that the accused’s own words had brought the matter in a narrow compass. He had told of the need to explore for tight clothing, and he had admitted that if there was no need in any instance to do so it would be an improper act. The vital question was: did the acts happen in the way the constables thought? The jury would also have to decide whether the constable’s observation of the extraction room was entirely reliable, or whether they had correctly interpreted the accused’s actions.

Honesty of Police His Honoi' said that the honesty of the police would not be in question no matter what was the result of the Ca Ccunsel for the accused had stigmatised one witness plainly as a liar, because he submitted that other evidence had shown it to be impossible for things to have happened the way the woman had said. His Honor said that her evidence could not be so airily dismissed. It was the evidence of an observer telling her tale the way she saw things. The fact that the witness mentioned by Mr Leicester was not called by the police was not “a sad commentary on the administration of justice by the police,”' added His Honor.