French court gives gynaecologist 10-year prison term after rape convictions involving patients

*Event date: 2025-07-05*

A court in Haute-Savoie has sentenced a gynaecologist from Bonneville to 10 years in prison after finding him guilty of raping nine of his patients during medical consultations.

France 24 reported that the case began with 30 women filing complaints against the doctor, who is in his 60s, alleging sexual assault during medical exams. The court ultimately convicted him of raping nine of the plaintiffs, a verdict that turns a long-running set of accusations into a formal criminal judgment.

The details described in the report are disturbing because they centre on the misuse of medical authority. Some women said the doctor carried out acts they experienced as unjustified rectal exams and “vaginal massages” that were presented as medically necessary. Four plaintiffs accused him of penetration with his genitals. The prosecution and the victims’ lawyers framed the conduct as sexualised, not therapeutic.

The defendant denied all allegations. France 24 said the debate at trial was especially heated over intent, with lawyers for some plaintiffs stressing that the victims had testified in court and been believed. The contrast between the doctor’s denials and the court’s findings is the heart of the case.

What makes the sentence notable is not just the prison term but the scale of the breach of trust. A medical consultation is supposed to be a place of examination and care. The allegations here were about the opposite: the use of that setting to carry out abuse under the cover of medical language and procedure.

The judge’s ruling also reflects the larger burden on the complainants. Thirty women came forward, but only nine convictions were secured in this judgment. Even so, that is enough to establish a pattern serious enough to merit a decade in prison. France 24 quoted lawyers saying the recognition of the victims’ testimony matters because it allows them to begin rebuilding their lives.

The case is also significant because it shows how courts handle allegations where the facts are contested but the damage is personal and severe. The sentencing does not erase the trauma described by the complainants, but it does give the legal system’s answer to the question of whether the conduct crossed the criminal line.

For the public, the verdict is a reminder that abuse can occur in professional settings where patients are most vulnerable. For the victims, the sentence is a formal recognition that what happened to them was not acceptable treatment but a crime.