Newcastle doctor Jeremy Coleman - the well-known general physician, allergy and immunology specialist who in 2018 was acquitted of 50 counts of sexual and indecent assault against former patients - will face a retrial after the DPP revealed on Friday they would prosecute more than a dozen unresolved charges.
It was the longest criminal trial in Newcastle history and it ended with 50 not guilty verdicts and a jury hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining 16 counts.
But more than three years after the marathon 12-month trial came to an end in Newcastle District Court, the DPP have indicated they intend to prosecute Dr Coleman on 13 of the 16 outstanding charges.
The trial, expected to run between four and six weeks, is scheduled to start in Sydney's Downing Centre District Court in February, 2023, nearly four-and-a-half years after his first trial ended with 50 acquittals.
The remaining counts - which include aggravated sexual and indecent assault - had bounced around the District Court for years before there was a development from the DPP on Friday.
"Regrettably, we've received news [the DPP] intends to proceed with a retrial, three years after the jury was discharged," John Laxon, lawyer for Dr Coleman, told Judge Christopher O'Brien in Downing Centre District Court.
The retrial could have commenced as early as October next year, but Judge O'Brien was concerned it had such a "history" that the estimate could again blow out and it could run into the court's Christmas break.
Regrettably, we've received news [the DPP] intends to proceed with a retrial, three years after the jury was discharged.
John Laxon, lawyer for Dr Jeremy Coleman, said in Sydney Downing Centre District Court on Friday.
Dr Coleman, 64, a general physician, allergy and immunology specialist who has seen more than 40,000 patients and conducted more than 150,000 consultations during his career, had pleaded not guilty to 66 counts of sexual and indecent assault against 46 female patients between 1989 and 2013.
The 12-month trial, which began life as an estimated six-month trial, turned on three words: proper medical purpose.
The well-known doctor's defence, led by barrister Pauline David, had said repeatedly that Dr Coleman's only purpose for examining or touching any of his patients was a medical one.
"He is a highly trained and highly capable medical doctor," Ms David said.
"It was his job to examine them, it was his job to touch them."
If the examination took place there was a medical reason for it, the defence said.
But for some allegations Dr Coleman denied the examinations took place or disagreed the consultations occurred the way the women claimed.
