Author: Sonja Francis

THE jury in the trial of a Thame hair consultant facing charges of indecent and sexual assault, heard his receptionist describe the defendant, Praminder Mankoo, as “The best boss I ever had – a lovely guy!”
Julie Herron, who has worked at Mankoo’s clinic in Thame since June, 2007, said that she accepted an offer of a massage from her boss after work, for stress in her left shoulder. She said that she removed her top and trousers, and her bra, “because it would get in the way of the massage.”
She told the court that at no time did Mankoo touch her breasts or say anything “inappropriate.”

Miss Herron was asked by the Prosecution Counsel whether her evidence was at all influenced or effected by the fact that she liked her work and wanted to keep her job.”

“No,” she replied.

When repeatedly questioned about how much of Mankoo’s chest she had seen when he was wearing his white, clinic jacket, and whether she had ever seen chest scars (scars complainants had said they had seen when he was undressed), Miss Herron told the Prosecuting Counsel:

“You’re giving me a hard time; you’re a bit scarey!”

Pros. Counsel: “What do you mean?”

Miss Herron: “You’re pushing the point too much.!

P.C : “Some people are saying things differently to you.”

Miss Herron: “I know they are. I am totally surprised that they could say such lies.”

P.C : “Have you discussed things with Mr Mankoo then?”

Miss H : “We have talked about things. It is a horrible situation.”

She refuted a suggestion that she had come to court to lie because she was worried about paying her mortgage.

Three other women spoke today, on day eight of the trial, in Mankoo’s defence, about their experience of his behaviour, saying in turn:
“What I expected – a professional manner.”

“Extremely respectful and courteous with clients.”

“Very professional, straight forward and honest character.”

All the evidence completed, the Prosecution and the Defence then both summed up their cases for the jury. The following are some of their main points:

PROSECUTION

That there is a thread running through the evidence of the women complainants, i.e.
* that they were all complaining of going bald, a very embarrassing condition; all in desperate need of a cure.

* All offered a massage, during which the defendant “chances his arm” (Pros. Counsel’s words) by “groping” their chest area while saying inappropriate things.

* Most of the complainants said something to friends or family about what happened to them.

*That the women did not know each other so their allegations could not be coincidence.

That it was hard to believe that a professional person, against whom someone had made an allegation (the 1998 incident), would accept a caution rather than fight to clear his name, and if nothing else, whether he be guilty of that offence or not, should it not have been ‘flagged up’ to him that he would need to take more care with future patients?”

That Mankoo is “preditory”

That a couple of things the defendant said, are particularly telling i.e.
* That when interviewed about one of the complainants, there was no mention from Mankoo that the incident was consensual, until the officer interviewing him mentioned the allegation about Mankoo getting undressed and the complainant seeing scars on his abdomen.

* That in that same interview, he said: “She’s one that didn’t run out!” – Not just a ‘slip of the tongue’ said the Prosecution, but that Mankoo was indicating that others had taken unbridge with him and “stormed out.”

* That he had said in evidence that he could not control himself because he had an erection.
“He should have learned that a long time ago,” said the Prosecution.

DEFENCE

That Mankoo is entitled to the benefit of any doubt the jury may feel about his guilt.

That it is not a case of who you believe, but whether the prosecution has made “you” (the jury) certain.

That people do sometimes embellish, exaggerate and mis-interpret what happens to them.

That some of the women may have been influenced by what they had seen on TV, read in the news or been told by the police officer in the case of what other women had said.

That he may have been “a foolish, stupid man,” and over-stepped the bounds of decency, in having two extra-marital affairs (the two incidents that he claims were consensual) but that does not make him “a sexual predator or a sexual monster.”

That it is unlikely that a professional man would “take leave of his senses” and jeopordise his business and his family by sexually assaulting six women?

That it was patronsing to women in general to believe that because they were suffering from low esteem due to hairloss, that a woman would not be capable of saying “No!”

That there are inconsistancies in the statements of the first witness, (9 years apart) from the 1998 incident, which therefore made her evidence “inherantly unreliable. “

That several defence witnesses, who had known the defendant for some time, indicated that Mankoo was a man of good character, and “not the type to commit these sorts of offences.”

The judge will give her summing up of all the evidence tomorrow morning (11/09/08), and then the jury will be sent out to consider their verdict on each, individual count.

PRAMINDER Mankoo has been in the witness box for the second day today, and continued to deny most of the eleven sexual and indecent assault charges against him.
Mankoo maintained that the most serious allegation, that he tried to force a patient to commit a sex act upon him, was instigated by the woman herself.
“She was more in control of the situation than I was,” he said, on what was the seventh day of his trial.

Mankoo admitted becoming aroused during a massage treatment on the woman, saying that he allowed her to massage his private parts. (Editor’s paraphrase)

The Prosecution counsel accused him of “telling a pack of lies” about the incident, and that he claimed it was consensual because he was trying to explain away the fact that he knew she had seen his burn scars on his abdomen.

“Absolutley not,” Mankoo replied.

When asked,”Why did you do what you say you did with this witness, knowing you had faced a previous Caution for a sexual assault, and a police complaint from another patient?”

He replied: “I was afraid that if I didn’t comply, I would offend her and she might go to the police, because I had told her about the 1998 incident.”

Following evidence from a second defence witness, an ex-patient, Mankoo admitted that he had not told this witness, nor the ex-GP who spoke in his defence yesterday, the whole truth about the 1998 incident
for which he was cautioned.

When cross examined about not remembering a great deal about one particular complainant, an ex temp. employee, Mankoo was asked how he was then able to say later that she was “quite busty.”

“Do you remember the bust size of all your patients?”
“No,” replied Mankoo.

Three other defence witnesses, including Mankoo’s dentist brother, described him in turn as, “Very honest, caring and someone who “puts the needs of others before his own,” “someone who would be taken advantage of, rather than the other way round,”someone who would do nothing to jeopordise his family, and by his brother, as someone the family would go to for a massage if they felt tense or had a headache,”a good man, gentle, soft and compassionate,” “a great father,” and “easily lead.”

Earlier, Mankoo had told the judge in reply to questioning, that he was treating ladies in an intimate way, without a chaperone or other female on the premises, out of “financial necessity,” because he could only afford to pay for a limited number of receptionist hours.

“I was always concerned,” he said, “because you are putting yourself in a vunerable position. But I couldn’t do anything about it. I was trying to offer a service.”

The trial continues tomorrow at Oxford Crown Court.

A THAME hair consultant, facing several charges of sexual assault and indecent assault, denied in court today that whilst massaging a client in 1998, he dropped his trousers and pants and used offensive, sexual inuendo.
The defendant, Praminder Mankoo, accused the woman of taking down his trousers herself, after “very openly moving around in the chair and moaning and sighing intensely” which, he said, aroused him, adding that she then ma…..ed him.

“I then said,”Enough,” he said. “I zipped up my trousers and carried on with the massage.
“She was a forthcoming, willing participant,” he added.

Mankoo, who runs a hair clinic in Thame, said that he was “scared out of my pants” when arrested following a complaint by the woman, because he had not been given names at that time. He said that he accepted a formal caution from the police adding: ” because I had been at the police station all day, and I was very tired and scared. My wife was heavily pregnant and I had just set up a new business. The negative publicity would have affected my business considerably.”

Mankoo denied remembering seeing two of the complainants before, although he thought one of them ‘looked familiar’ and denied their complaints against him, that he had touched their breasts inappropriately, and in the case of the second woman, of dropping his trousers.

Mankoo denied that anything untoward occured during a massage he offered to a temporary receptionist, because she was stressed. He said they only talked about “things in general” and denied saying: “If these were someone else’s hands, what would you want them to do?”

When questioned by his Defence Counsel about the accusations of several complainants, that he had taken down their bra straps, Mankoo said that he always told clients before hand that they would have to take down their straps so that he could massage their shoulders with oils. He denied asking clients to wear certain types of underwear for their next visits.

A witness for Mankoo’s defence, a retired GP, told the court that he had first met him during a consultation in his home in 2001, for a hair thinning problem she was suffering from. She said that she had never received a massage from Mankoo, that during her treatments she had never felt uncomfortable nor had there been any sexual connotations.

“I found him to be very pleasant, kind and sympathetic, a person of integrity,” she told the court.

She said that Mankoo had told her about his previous caution in 1998, recently at the start of these proceedings, and that they concerned similar matters to his more recent problems. But it had not affected her view of him, she added.

In reply to questions from the Prosecuting counsel, the witness said that Mankoo told her he was accused of touching breasts. “He said that, in the process of massaging arms, he may have touched breasts at the the side accidentally,” she said.

Prosecuting counsel: “Did he not tell you about mas….n, while patients were sexually aroused?

Witness: “No.”

She agreed that if she had been told, it would have changed her view of Mankoo, and that she had been mislead.

The case continues tomorrow at Oxford Crown Court.

Photo: Oxford Crown Court