A family doctor has been cleared of sexually assaulting 14 female patients who accused him of touching them inappropriately.

Dr Rodney Tate, who was suspended from the Old Steine Surgery, Brighton, in August 2004, can now return to work after being acquitted of 17 counts of indecent assault.

The 67-year-old was found not guilty of eight charges at Lewes Crown Court, yesterday.

Judge David Rennie had already decided there was insufficient evidence to convict him of another nine.

The jury returned with its verdict on the four-week trial after three hours.

On behalf of the doctor, Ian Baker, of the Medical Defence Union, said afterwards: "Dr Tate has always maintained his innocence and he is pleased and relieved by today's verdict.

"He would like to thank his family, friends, patients and colleagues who have been so supportive of him throughout this ordeal. He will now be spending some time with his family."

Dr Tate's wife Rowena had sat close to her husband in court throughout the trial.

She had heard patients and a practice nurse testify against him.

A medical expert claimed Dr Tate had used the pretext of the exams "to satisfy his sexual gratification and enforce his position of power in the doctor-patient relationship".

He was accused, among other complaints, of fondling the breasts of a 73-year-old and using the excuse of checking for piles to assault a student.

Defending, QC William Coker told the court the difference between medically appropriate and sexual touching "may be half a centimetre".

He added: "Sometimes touching for a medical reason can be indistinguishable from, what would be described in other circumstances, as a caress."

One witness, who was 17 at the time of the incident and expecting her first child, said the doctor had assaulted her while giving her a smear test.

Another woman explained how following an appointment with Dr Tate she had come home and told her husband: "He touched me up and groped me."

Dr Tate denied all charges and Mr Coker said his client was professionally obliged to touch his patients in intimate places.

If he had failed to do so, when required, he would be in greater legal trouble, the QC added.

Although he conceded that the lack of a "bedside manner" could exacerbate his client's difficulties.