The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

AN emergency room doctor facing claims of indecent assault does not believe the prosecution has made out a case against him.

Dr Lynwood Brown, a 38-year-old physician at Doctors Hospital and a former PLP candidate who last July pleaded not guilty to indecent assault, alleged to have occurred on September 7, 2010, made the ‘‘no-case submission” through his lawyer Murrio Ducille in court yesterday.

Appearing before Magistrate Guilimina Archer of Court no.10, Mr Ducille told the magistrate that, in his and his client’s view, the prosecution had not made out its case.

“My submission is that the prosecution, having regard to the nature of the charge, have not established a prima facie case,” the lawyer said.

He referred to the evidence of the complainant who testified that Dr Brown had fondled her breasts and when she told him to stop he said she was “petty and touchy.”

Mr Ducille also noted the evidence of two witnesses to the alleged incident. One claimed that during her time in the break room, prior to the complainant’s arrival, Dr Brown started making comments about their breasts, the type of bra she was wearing. She claimed he pulled the other woman’s blouse open and she pulled it back.

Mr Ducille noted that the prosecution’s case was based on the evidence of two witnesses and the complainant, who, according to the two witnesses, were close friends of the complainant.

The lawyer, having noted the conflict of interest, argued that the discrepancy in the evidence of the complainant was that she had told the court that she was not a friend of either of the witnesses.

He also noted that up to the time of the incident, based on the complainant’s testimony, she and

Dr Brown had never had any issues in the two years that they had worked together.

Mr Ducille noted that his client and the complainant, on the night in question, had had an exchange of words regarding the treatment of a pregnant patient. Dr Brown reported the matter to his superiors in the hospital.

He also pointed to the evidence of the woman constable, who said under cross-examination that Dr Brown denied the alleged offence and maintained his innocence throughout his interview with police.

Mr Ducille maintained that the entire case of the prosecution was discrepant on the basis that the prosecution failed to give a reason for the complainant denying her friendship with the witnesses who claimed to be close friends with hers.

He reiterated his position that his client should not be called on to answer the case against him.

In response to the submissions, Calvin Seymour, sitting in for Ramona Farquharson-Seymour, said notwithstanding the submission of the attorney regarding a discrepancy, the lawyer had not indicated whether or not there was a discrepancy about the complainant’s breast being touched.

“This is not about the friendship but what took place in the break room,” Mr Seymour said.

He submitted that based on the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses, the touching of the complainant’ s breast was indecent as she did not invite the accused to touch them.

He concluded that the evidence was sufficient for Dr Brown to answer to the case made out against him.

Magistrate Archer noted that her decision on whether or not Dr Brown had a case to answer would be decided on February 6, 2013, the only convenient date available date on the court’s calendar.