“Bullish” prosecution claim as doctor appeals voyeurism conviction

A doctor who was training at the Jersey General Hospital when he was caught taking videos of other men using urinals sought to appeal his conviction in the Royal Court this morning.

Diego Balassini was convicted of nine counts of voyeurism in January this year.

The 28-year-old had filmed men using urinals at town bars and the airport, and men getting changed in a gym changing room.

During his trial, Crown Advocate Lauren Taylor used messages and images from Balassini’s phone to illustrate what she said was a sexual interest in urination.

Claim mental-health problems ‘dismissed’

Balassini had argued that he was suffering from mental illnesses, including obsessive compulsive disorder, and that he was in a dissociative state when he took the videos.

After his conviction, the Cambridge-educated doctor was spared jail but is currently suspended from working as a doctor in the UK.

Appearing in front of the Court of Appeal this morning, Advocate Stephen Baker said Balassini’s mental health issues had been dismissed by the Jurats.

The prosecution had been “bullish” and presented the case as “a strong one”, he said.

Advocate Baker added prosecutors had been “dismissive” of the defence case and called no experts to counter the defence experts.

Two experts – a psychologist and a psychiatrist – had appeared for the defence. The Crown’s case, he said, was that Balassini had lied to them about his symptoms.

Denial prosecution was “bullish”

Advocate Baker added that the Commissioner presiding over the case, Sir William Bailhache, should have reminded the Jurats of the expert evidence.

“The interventions by the Commissioner made it pretty clear what he thought about the case,” he said.

Advocate Baker also argued that there was an issue with the way the charges were phrased in the indictment.

Crown Advocate Lauren Taylor denied that the prosecution had been “bullish”, saying: “We submit that this was a case where the defendant was convicted, given the overwhelming evidence.”

She said she had not called any experts, as they would also be limited by what Balassini said.

The Crown Advocate acknowledged that there was an error in the indictment, but said there was no prejudice.

The Court of Appeal reserved its judgment. Jonathan Crow CVO KC was presiding with David Perry KC and Roddy Dunlop KC.