Defence lawyer calls victims ‘vicious little girls’

Attorney Steve McField

(CNS): Local defence attorney Steve McField, who is representing a former John Gray High School teacher accused of indecent assault, said the students making the allegations were “vicious little girls” who thought their teacher was a “creepy paedophile” and had made up lies to destroy him. As the case against the teacher came to a close Thursday, McField told the jury that “many lies” had been told during the trial and children can be the most vicious liars of all.

The teacher, who had taken the stand, had denied all the allegations made by the three students, who were 11 and 12 at the time the assault was said to have happened. The girls had accused the teacher of touching them inappropriately in ways that made them uncomfortable during a class at the end of January last year. But the teacher told the court that he was late with a mock exam that he needed to prepare for older students at the time, so that day he hadn’t paid much attention to the class and had left them to get on with a task he had set while he prepared the exam paper.

Although the girls had spoken about the allegations with each other, each one had told different people separately before making reports to the police. One told a friend and then the school counsellor, another her mother and then the police, while the third girl told her friends that she had been touched as well before she reported it to the counsellor; and then they all went to the police — all of which happened over a five-day period.

The girls gave accounts that the teacher had touched their breasts and one said he had brushed his hand along her inner thing toward her pubic area. The touching, she said, could almost have been accidental but she said it made her uncomfortable.

The teacher categorically denied touching them at all. When asked under cross-examination if it was possible that the girls could have been mistaken about accidental touching, he insisted he did not go near them and had no physical contact.

On the day that the girls said the touching occurred, he and the children in question were not even close to each other, he maintained. He said he had sat at the back of the class getting on with his own work and the students were at their desks for the entire lesson, with none of them requiring his attention, asking questions or moving from their chairs.

One of the girls, however, had said the touching happened when she got up to remove documents from a printer, which appeared to be corroborated by the properties on the document file. The other two said the touching occurred when he assisted them with their work at their desks. Other children also gave evidence in court, saying they had seen the touching of one of the girls.

But McField insisted his client was telling the truth and that he had not touched them. He said his client was a strict teacher who had threatened the children with detention and calling their parents, so they and their friends had fabricated a story to get him in trouble.

He pointed to allegations that one of the girls made that they had caught a glimpse of the word porn in the browser on the teacher’s computer and a disappearing image of a bed on the screen as he closed down the machine. McField said this was the “worst lie” told to embellish their false story, as forensic analysis of the computer showed no evidence that the teacher had looked at any pornography on it.

The attorney said that the crown had failed to prove that his client had done anything. He said the teacher hadn’t gone anywhere near the girls but they had told terrible lies to “take this man’s freedom from him”. The lawyer described the victims as “really smart… vicious little girls who believed that this man was a paedophile” and made up a story that he had touched them.

“This case really, really falls short,” McField said, adding that the jury of five men and one woman could not find his client guilty as they must have doubts the girls were telling the truth.

The case continues Friday, with the judge’s directions to the jury before they begin deliberations.