The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Court Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

A MEDICAL official and a police officer gave testimony in the Supreme Court yesterday in the case of a man accused of sexually abusing his daughter.

A 47-year-old man, whose name is being withheld to protect his accuser’s identity, was in court before Justice Guillimina Archer- Minns for the continuation of his incest trial.

It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused molested his now adult daughter twice in 2015 and 2016 when she was 15 and 16 years old.

In a previous court appearance, a recording was played where the accused is said to have been heard begging his daughter not to tell anyone what he did as he could go to jail.

The accused also claimed he was also the victim of molestation as a child by his own uncle.

While he allegedly said that what happened then did not justify what he did to his own daughter, he promised to admit to what he did if the complainant attended counselling with him.

After taking a recording of this telephone conversation with her phone, the now 22-year-old officially lodged sexual abuse charges against her father in 2017.

During her testimony in court a doctor detailed her involvement in the case. At around 11.30am on February 7, 2017 she performed an examination on the complainant in relation to her accusations.

While she could not recall the exact details of the day in question, she referred directly to the sexual assault hospital form she filled out then with her signature attached. This document was shown to the justice and officially logged into evidence.

In reading the document in court she said that it appeared the defendant had no abrasions, lacerations, contusions, bruising, bite marks or tenderness apparent in her examination. While she also noted the absence of blood, semen or foreign material present, the complainant’s hymen was not intact.

Although the medical examiner reiterated that she does not remember exact details of that day’s events she remembered that her patient was withdrawn and in a school uniform.

During his cross-examination Murrio Ducille, KC, asked if there was any way for a hymen to be damaged beyond sex. In response the doctor said that the hymen could be affected through a variety of physical activities, including ballet, sports or use of sex toys.

When asked if she performed a DNA test during her examination the doctor said that she could not recall if she had, but that she did take blood and urine samples.

Afterwards the witness agreed to the prosecutor for the Crown’s assertion that DNA evidence would not have been present in the following months after the incident and her examination.

In the police officer’s testimony, she said that she issued the complainant a sexual assault hospital form after she reported the incident in the latter half of January 2017. The officer further indicated that while an appointment was made to seek medical attention, the complainant was not escorted to the hospital by police or were they present at the examination.

The timing of the alleged sexual abuse was beyond the 72-hour time frame when officers would pursue such actions and as such no sexual assault kit was used either.

In the Crown’s cross-examination, the officer expanded on the point that if the complainant had come within 72 hours of the sexual assault then doctors would have been able to collect DNA and semen samples. Since the examination took place beyond that period, medical professionals say that any DNA evidence collected would be insignificant.

When asked if authorities would find any DNA evidence of significant value after a period of months. “No” was the officer’s reply.

With the prosecution having closed its case, the defence elected to address the jury and give testimony. The defendant also informed the justice of his intent to bring two to three witnesses to speak on his behalf.

In Mr Ducille’s address he acknowledged that the case against his client was of a sexual nature.

He further said that such accusations are easy to make, but difficult to displace. The attorney called into question the timing between the alleged incident and the accusations being made.

During his testimony the defendant denied both the allegations and that it was him in the previously mentioned audio recording. While he brought up his own copy of a screenshotted WhatsApp conversation between him and his daughter in court, his counsel’s move to have it entered as evidence was rejected.

Justice Archer-Minns stated that the defence’s counsel had failed to lay the necessary groundwork for the documents first, as there was no official signature, date or seal on them.

The hearing of this case will continue today.