This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/12/beautician-jailed-for-assaulting-women-during-hair-removal-loses-court-appeal
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Beautician jailed for assaulting women during hair removal loses court appeal | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A Perth beautician who was jailed for touching clients’ genitals during hair removal treatments has lost an appeal against his conviction. | A Perth beautician who was jailed for touching clients’ genitals during hair removal treatments has lost an appeal against his conviction. |
| Don Chaminda Prabath Subasinghe was found guilty after a trial of seven counts of sexual penetration without consent against six women and was sentenced in 2014 to four years and eight months in jail. | Don Chaminda Prabath Subasinghe was found guilty after a trial of seven counts of sexual penetration without consent against six women and was sentenced in 2014 to four years and eight months in jail. |
| The offences occurred at the Cut N Curl Beauty Salon in Canning Vale in late 2010 and early 2011 when Subasinghe was performing a Brazilian treatment using intense pulsed light, commonly known as IPL. | The offences occurred at the Cut N Curl Beauty Salon in Canning Vale in late 2010 and early 2011 when Subasinghe was performing a Brazilian treatment using intense pulsed light, commonly known as IPL. |
| Subasinghe took his case to the Western Australian court of appeal and sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction but the matter was dismissed on Monday. | Subasinghe took his case to the Western Australian court of appeal and sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction but the matter was dismissed on Monday. |
| Many of his proposed grounds of appeal relied on additional evidence he sought leave to adduce to show that the “rubbing sensation” reported by the women was caused by a device called a Serenity Pro Pneumatic Skin Flattening Attachment, rather than his hands. | Many of his proposed grounds of appeal relied on additional evidence he sought leave to adduce to show that the “rubbing sensation” reported by the women was caused by a device called a Serenity Pro Pneumatic Skin Flattening Attachment, rather than his hands. |
| “Those proposed grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospects of success,” the judges said. “This is essentially because we have found that the appellant did not use the PSF attachment on the complainants and his evidence concerning the use of the PSF attachment is not credible.” | “Those proposed grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospects of success,” the judges said. “This is essentially because we have found that the appellant did not use the PSF attachment on the complainants and his evidence concerning the use of the PSF attachment is not credible.” |
| Subasinghe also complained about the trial judge’s direction to the jury and the absence of an interpreter at trial but the judges found there was no merit in either of those grounds. | Subasinghe also complained about the trial judge’s direction to the jury and the absence of an interpreter at trial but the judges found there was no merit in either of those grounds. |
| “The trial judge’s direction was correct and the appellant neither requested nor required an interpreter at trial,” they said. | “The trial judge’s direction was correct and the appellant neither requested nor required an interpreter at trial,” they said. |
| “Given the lengthy delay in appealing, which has not been adequately explained, and lack of any merit in the proposed grounds of appeal, the application for an extension of time should be refused and the appeal dismissed.” | “Given the lengthy delay in appealing, which has not been adequately explained, and lack of any merit in the proposed grounds of appeal, the application for an extension of time should be refused and the appeal dismissed.” |