POLICE USED PERISCOPES TO WATCH DENTIST

Chronicle (Levin), 1 August 1947, Page 7

POLICE USED PERISCOPES TO WATCH DENTIST

-Press Association

Bv »Telea}tavh'

WELLINGTON, July 31. How periseopes were used in an adjacent building to observe the niovements of Gordon ' McCallum, dentaJ surgeon, aged 42, wa? told in the Magistrate 's Court by poliee witnesses. MeOallum pleaded not guilty to nine charges. of indecent assault on women. He was coinmitted to the Supreme Gourt for trial. This was the second day of the hear ing. A11 emplovee in a building adjacent accused 's surgery said slie had seen McCallum indecentiy interfering with.a girl in her early teens while under an anaesthetic. Detective-Sergeaut G. 0. Urquhart said tliat on October 1, 1940, he interviewed aecused and told him it was alleged he had indecentiy assaulted a patient. Accused expressed amazement at the allegations. He said he remembered the patient well and that her breathing under the anaesthetic was very stertorous. He had rubbed her stoinacli to assist her because slie was very distressed 011 regaining consciousness. There was nothing to take exception to as far as any of his actions were concerned. His actions were the normal procedure. Constable C. W. Xaylor said tliat, in association witli Constable W. Watson, he examined the locality of McCallum 's surgery and decided that satisfactory and unobtrusive observations could be made of accused 's movements front an adjacent building, Kelburn Chambers. Observations began at 3.30 p.111. 011 Juue 9 and continued till June 30. Periseopes were used so that a continuous observation could be kept in an unobtrusive nuiiiuer. With the aid of the periseopes it was possible to see at very close nuige a patient seated 111 the extraction clxair and the moveiuent of the dentist and nurses. Witness gave details of dates mentioned in the charges wlien women patients had been treated under anaesthetic by accused. Tlie actions of accused were delinite and distiuct, said witness. Every movement was noted. On June 30 after oue incident, witness, aceompanied by Sergeant C. E. Tanner and Constable Watson, visited accused. Accused was told he had been observed indecentiy assaulting a female patient. Accused replied: "This is very serious. It means the end of my practiee. What act are you refemng to?" Sergeant Tanner had informed him two constables had seen him eoinmit an oifence. Accused was tlien arrested and cliarged with assauit. To this cliarge he rcpiied: " 1 do not Know that there is any explanation to make except that 1 do this tliing every day. People coine here and want gas. They are asked ii tliey have any tight clothing 011. Sometimes they say no, yet they have and are sick. I have to make sure. I feli to see if the patient had any tight clothing on. 1 thought she had a belt 011 which might- make her sick." Bergeant Tanner asked if the patient was sick and accused replied that he did not know and added that a nurse was present all the time. Accused was then taken to the Central Police Station and while waitiug in the passagevvay accused asked witness: "What did L do ? " Witness replied: "You are as fully aware of your actions as we are. You know what you did." Cross-examined by Mr. C. II. Arndt, for accused, witness said there were eurtains which could be drawn over the surgery windows. He had never seeu the eurtains drawn. The people in Wellington Terrace would be able to see .utu the surii'erv.

Constable Watson and Bergeanl Tanner gave corroborative evidence. Mr. Arndt asked Ihe' Magistrate, Mr. McLachlaii,. to liold that the evidence was not such that a jury would be prepared to say that the actions of accused amounted to indecency and were hol the actions of a dentist carrving out his normal duties. In a number oi cases a nurse had been present throughout. It was iucredible that accused would cofnmit an indecent assault on a patient whiie his nurse was present. 7he Magistrate said that with some diifidence he would hold that a prima facie case had been established. This was essentiallv a case for a jury, he added. Accused was allowed baii in his own recogiiisance of £150 and oue surety of £50.