Had he done anything? I read that he was charged with a crime. If charges are to be taken as being guilty, if newspaper reporting if to be the arbiter of guilt or innocence and if the public is as hasty as to ascribe guilt as it seems, small wonder that the man did what he did!
If he is tried, found guilty and sentenced - well, that is a different matter. At this stage he appears not to have been found guilty of anything. Even if acquitted, comments indicate that there would still be a'no smoke without fire' psychology to face.
Without going into specific cases - there have been some instances of charges of indecent assault etc having been brought which have been proven to have been malicious and/or amounting to technical assault (nothing resembling the sex allegations)
I know nothing of this particular case but if some of what is being said here is typical of newspaper reporting and public opinion it may be said to be prejudicial to a fair trial.