By LAMECH JOHNSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
AN EMERGENCY room doctor who pleaded not guilty to claims of indecent assault was told by a magistrate that he does have a case to answer.
In response to Magistrate Guilimina Archer’s ruling on last November’s no-case submissions, Dr Lynwood Brown, a 38-year-old physician at Doctors Hospital and former PLP candidate, has opted to give sworn evidence and call eight witnesses in his defence.
His defence is expected to commence on July 22 in Magistrate’s Court 10.
Brown is alleged to have indecently assaulted a woman on September 7, 2010. The trial began last July with the complainant and three other witnesses testifying.
Last November, attorney Murrio Ducille told the magistrate that in his and his client’s view, the prosecution had not made a sufficient case.
He referred to the evidence of the complainant, who testified that Dr Brown had fondled her breasts and when she told him to stop. The attorney described her as “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 her breasts and the type of bra she was wearing.
She claimed he pulled the other woman’s blouse open and she pulled back.
Mr Ducille noted that the prosecution’s case was based on the evidence of three witnesses who, according to the testimony of two of them, were all close friends.
The lawyer, having claimed a conflict of interest, also noted a discrepancy, in that the complainant told the court that she was not a friend of either witness.
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, having worked together for two years.
Mr Ducille noted that on the night in question, his client and the complainant 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 a 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 said the prosecution failed to give a reason for the complainant denying her friendship with the witnesses who claimed to be close friends with her.
In response to the submissions, Calvin Seymour, sitting in for Ramona Farquharson-Seymour, noted that Mr Ducille had not indicated whether 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 the accused was not invited to do so.
He concluded that the evidence was sufficient for Dr Brown to have a case to answer.
Following two delays on the ruling due to outstanding stenographers notes, the magistrate ruled on Monday that the physician had a case to answer to and read his options to him.
The case returns to court on July 22.