Squeezing a woman’s bottom without her consent was an indecent assault in the case before a Grand Court jury last week.
After hearing evidence against Tron Mjolhus and the defendant’s version of events, jurors deliberated about 15 minutes and returned a unanimous guilty verdict.
Defence Attorney Ben Tonner spoke in mitigation for Mjolhus, who at 55 had no previous convictions. Justice Alex Henderson fined him $4,500, a little more than one month’s income.
The defendant could have been tried in Summary Court, but he elected Grand Court.
The charge arose from an incident that occurred in September 2006 at an insurance company office, where he was applying for a policy.
Prior to the incident, Mjolhus had been to the office, where he met the complainant. He had also spoken to her on the phone.
The complainant told the court that conversation with Mjolhus had made her uncomfortable and she told her supervisor she did not want to deal with him.
When he came in the next time, the receptionist called her, so she accompanied him to another agent’s office. The agent was at the computer and asked them to wait a moment.
While standing there, she felt a gripping with fingers on her bottom. She froze, then moved away.
The agent in the office did not see any contact, but she did see a change in the complainant’s countenance.
Another employee, whose desk was across the hall, said she saw Mjolhus put his right hand on the complainant’s buttocks. She said she saw the woman step away, looking frightened.
Mjolhus chose to give evidence. He agreed he had told the complainant he was giving her the nickname ‘G.L.’, telling her it meant ‘Gorgeous Lady’, ‘Great Legs’ and a crude term for sexual intimacy. He said using that term was poor judgment on his part, but he maintained that neither the complainant nor the office receptionist objected.
He further stated that the woman hugged him came out to greet him, although this was denied by the woman in the evidence she gave.
Mjolhus said the act complained of was accidental contact, not an intentional touching. When they were walking in the hallway, she did not turn when he expected her to. He reached out to touch her elbow and that was when she turned, so that his knuckles touched her hip in the belt area.
He gave his opinion that the employee across the hall could not have seen what happened because of the layout of the building. He disagreed with photographs shown to the jury, saying the office arrangement was different when he was there.
However, Crown Counsel Elisabeth Lees had called the company vice-president, who said the office layout had been the same for the past five years.
In his instructions to the jury, Justice Henderson said squeezing the women’s bottom in the circumstances of this case was an indecent assault. If jurors were sure Mjolhus did this act and intended to do it, they had to find him guilty.
The sole issue, he instructed, was the credibility of the witnesses. Jurors had to be sure the complainant was telling the truth and the defendant was not.
After the verdict, Mr. Tonner submitted that the charge of indecent assault covers a wide range of prohibited behaviour. He described this incident as being at the lower end of the scale.
It was of short duration, he said; there was no violence, no threat, no injury; no persistence in the face of protest; no breach of trust. The contact was outside the clothing.
Perhaps the greatest mitigating factor was Mjolhus’ good character and the fact that he had worked hard all his life, Mr. Tonner said.
The defendant, born and raised in Norway, had told the court he lived in at least six different countries. He came to Cayman in 1995, working with heavy equipment at the Port Authority for two years and in the private sector for 10 years.
He retired last year. He needed health insurance so that he could apply for permanent residency.
In passing sentence, Justice Henderson said that if Mjolhus had a previous conviction or if this indecent assault had been more serious, he would not have hesitated to impose a prison sentence.
Women in Cayman deserve to be treated with decorum and courtesy, but Mjolhus’ behaviour was outside the boundaries in any country in the world.
The judge saw no benefit to putting Mjolhus on probation at his age.
He therefore inquired about the defendant’s income. Mr. Tonner said Mjolhus was comfortable and able to pay for what he needed from interest on investments amounting to $13,000 per quarter.
Justice Henderson said he intended the sentence to make the defendant a little less comfortable.
Related Videos
