Therapist accused of raping client said penis was ‘like a laser beam’ – court
A therapist accused of raping and sexually assaulting a client said his penis was “like a laser beam” which could “burn up trauma” while using penetration as a “therapeutic technique”, the High Court has heard.
Michael Lousada is being sued by Ella Janneh, who visited him after suffering panic attacks during consensual sex due to being abused as a child.
Ms Janneh (pictured), who has waived her right to anonymity, claims that during a session on August 18 2016, she was raped and sexually assaulted by Mr Lousada in his clinic in Belsize Park, London.
The 37-year-old is now bringing a civil claim against Mr Lousada in the High Court after the Crown Prosecution Service said it would not pursue criminal charges in 2018.
Mr Lousada, who has appeared as a guest on the TV show This Morning, denies the allegations, claiming that the sexual activity was consensual and part of “legitimate” therapeutic activity.
At the start of a six-day trial in London on Friday, Nina Ross, representing Ms Janneh, said that Mr Lousada assaulted his client during a “body work” session after claiming to use penetration “as a therapeutic technique”.
She said: “The claimant’s case is that she did not consent to the sexual acts.
“She did not have the mental capacity to consent … nor did she have the freedom to consent due to the power dynamic inherent in a therapeutic relationship, nor did she have all the information she needed to consent because he gave her no warning.
“Nothing about her behaviour at the time or since has suggested she consented.
“She has thought of the incident as a rape from the day it happened.”
She continued: “There is no evidence before the court of why the defendant decided to take that risk, or what possible benefits there were for a trauma victim like the claimant, or indeed anyone.”
The court was told that Ms Janneh first visited Mr Lousada in 2011 and again in 2012 after suffering panic symptoms during consensual sex, which she believed stemmed from abuse as a child.
No sexual activity took place at that time.
She returned in 2016 for the “body work” session which she believed was similar to a physiotherapy session, coupled with talking therapy, Ms Ross said.
Giving her evidence in court, Ms Janneh said she had a phone call with Mr Lousada where she explained the nature of her panic attacks and that she wanted to understand how to overcome the problem.
She said: “I absolutely did not ask him to work on penetration.
“I never, ever, ever would have asked him to penetrate me.”
When questioned over whether she had suggested she wished to use penetration as a therapy technique, Ms Janneh responded: “That is deeply untrue. It is the express opposite.”
In court documents, Ms Janneh claimed that Mr Lousada told her “his penis was, ‘like a laser beam’ and that it could ‘burn up trauma’, and that he should use his penis to absorb the trauma”.
The incident caused her to suffer a panic attack, leaving her unable to communicate and “incapable of providing valid and informed consent” as a result.
Ms Janneh, who now lives in Melbourne, Australia, reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police a day later.
No charges were brought and the case was dropped in May 2018.
As well as taking legal action against Mr Lousada, Ms Janneh is also suing Anteros Books Ltd, of which he was a director, for damages over claims of assault, trespass to the person and negligence.
Criminal and civil cases require different standards of proof, with criminal prosecutions requiring the higher standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, whereas civil cases can be ruled upon on “the balance of probabilities”.
Ms Janneh only needs to prove that it was more likely than not that she did not give consent to the sexual activity, rather than prove that Mr Lousada did not reasonably believe that she did not consent.
Barristers for Mr Lousada said while he accepts that penetration occurred, its purpose “was not to have intercourse, but to accommodate the claimant’s wish to work with penetration”, adding that the session was “about release of energy”.
In written submissions, lawyer David Boyle said that Ms Janneh did not fully disclose her past trauma and her vulnerable status, was aware of what the session involved and repeatedly provided “clear, unequivocal consent”.
In his notes following the session, Mr Lousada wrote that Ms Janneh “left feeling empowered and optimistic”.
Mr Boyle continued: “The defendant slowly and carefully proceeded with the treatment session. At each stage, he asked for clear, verbal, consent to the next step proposed.
“At each stage, the claimant responded with a clear ‘yes’, failing which the defendant did not and would not proceed.”
He continued that Mr Lousada offered clients a “range of activities” including workshops, talking therapy, him “massaging the client, either non-intimately or intimately”, and penetration “if so required”.
While he acknowledged that Mr Lousada’s activities “may not align with societal norms”, his work was a “legitimate activity”.
He continued: “The defendant’s best estimation is that he has worked with approximately 1,000 separate clients, and several thousand appointments, over the years, with approximately 30 to 40 of whom he has engaged in penile penetration.”
He continued: “In the current case, the defendant specifically asked whether the claimant wished to try penetration since other aspects of the treatment attempted did not seem to be having any significant effect.”
The trial before Mr Justice Jeremy Baker continues.
Copyright (c) PA Media Ltd. 2024, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) Leigh Day / PA.
