By LAMECH JOHNSON


Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

AN emergency room doctor faced claims of indecent assault yesterday in a private prosecution case.

The plaintiff in the case concluded her case yesterday following the defence’s cross-examination.

The case involves 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 following accusations surrounded an alleged incident on September 7, 2010.

The case has been delayed over legal arguments as to whether the complaint was filed in time.

At the next court proceeding, on November 6, Dr Lynwood Brown and his defending attorney Murrio Ducille will make a no-case submission to the court based on the evidence presented.

When the trial began, the doctor denying indecent assault.

The woman recalled the story to Mrs Farquaharson-Seymour, who is prosecuting the case and told the court a physician fondled her breasts and when she told him to stop he said she was “petty and touchy”.

The woman pointed out Dr Lynwood Brown as the alleged culprit who reportedly told her she was being “too petty and touchy” after she knocked his hand away and threatened to report his actions.

The court also heard evidence from 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 close.

In yesterday’s proceeding, a follow up from July 27, woman Detective Constable 1868 Datson took the witness stand to be cross-examined by Mr Ducille.

“Do you know one Larry Evans?” Mr Ducille asked.

“Yes, I do” D/C Datson replied.

“Were you involved in a mater where he was the applicant and you the respondent?” the attorney asked next.

“Yes” the detective answered.

“And in that matter, Dr Brown was listed as a witness?” the attorney inquired.

“No, sir” the witness answered.

“What was the nature of matter?” Mr Ducille asked.

Magistrate Archer interrupted at this point to clarify for the record if Mr Ducille had inquired of whether or not Datson was the applicant in the case and not the respondent.

Mr Ducille resumed his questioning and asked the witness if she “were involved in multiple matters with Larry Evans”.

“Yes,” the detective answered.

“Were you ever the respondent in any of these matters?” Mr Ducille inquired further.

“Never,” the witness answered.

Mr Ducille asked to address the magistrate in a private discussion with counsel.

Following the discussion, Mr Ducille asked the constable about her connection to the family court and the witness said she had a matter before the court concerning her children’s father.

Mrs Seymour made an objection as to what relevance the witness’ private life had to do with the current charge before the court.
Magistrate Archer agreed and asked Mr Ducille if their was a relevance, to get to the point.

“I’m suggesting to you ma’am, Mr Evans had you in court as a respondent during the period 2004-2005” he said to the policeman.

D/C Datson answered, “Never.”

The private prosecutor interrupted with an objection, again asking for relevance.
“This is very relevant,” Mr Ducille said to the magistrate.
Magistrate Archer said to Mr Ducille that if there is a specific suggestion he would like to put to the witness, then he should do so without it involving the witness’ personal life.

Mr Ducille continued: 
“Dr Brown had to give evidence against you concerning these matters in court?”

“Never,” the policewoman answered.

“According to you, you did a record of interview with Mr Brown?” the attorney asked.The detective answered yes.

“And you put a lot of suggestions to him…where did you get the information from?” he asked her. She said based on her investigations of the matter.

The attorney asked her if his client was clear and firm that what was suggested to him never happened and she said “yes.”

“I’m suggesting that you are personally involved in this case from Dr Brown having given evidence against you,” Mr Ducille said.

“That is not true,” D/C Datson answered.

When asked, D/C Datson said her involvement came about from her transfer to the Detective Unit of the Central Police Station from CDU as she was specialised and experienced in dealing with “fraud, sexual offenses and serious crime”.

Mr Ducille noted that he would make an application to the court at a future date if further questioning became necessary.
Mrs Seymour re-examined the witness and asked:
“Are you here giving evidence because of a grudge against Dr Brown?” D/C Datson said: “No.”

“Did you have any contact with Dr Brown between 2004-2005?” the prosecutor asked. “Never,” the witness answered.

“Did this matter go to the AG’s office?”

Mrs Seymour asked.
“Yes, it did” D/C Datson answered.

Mrs Seymour indicated to the court that the private prosecution was closing their case against Dr Brown and the defence was open to being theirs in response to the accusation.

The case was adjourned until November 6.