The King v A. M
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Floyd J. [Ag.] |
| Judgment Date | 29 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | VC 2024 HC 6 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO: SVGHCR 2022/0001 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
CASE NO: SVGHCR 2022/0001
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL)
Ms. Maria Jackson-Richards, Counsel for the Crown
Mr. A. M., Self-Represented Defendant
For the purposes of this decision, the defendant will be referred to by his initials, due to the familial connection between he and the complainant. To do otherwise, could lead to the identification of the complainant, which is to be avoided, owing to the nature of the charges. The defendant was charged with attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen, and two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen. On 19 th January 2024, the defendant was arraigned. He entered not guilty pleas to each count. With the exception of court appointed defence counsel for the purpose of cross examination of the complainant, the defendant was self-represented. It is lamentable that legal aid is not available in this jurisdiction for indigent defendants, save and except for those charged with capital offences. However, with penalties for offences such as those in this case being life imprisonment upon conviction, the jeopardy for persons charged, is significant. It would be hoped, therefore, that legal aid was available. Unfortunately, at this point in time, it is not. Nevertheless, the learned Carl Williams, court appointed defence counsel for the purpose of the cross examination of the complainant, kindly went beyond that remit, to assist the defendant with a legal issue raised by an application made by Crown counsel to read in evidence, and to assist the defendant in presenting his testimony. The court expresses its gratitude to defence counsel Williams for that assistance.
Following a trial with a jury, the defendant was found guilty on all counts. A Social Inquiry Report was sought by Crown counsel, and supported by defence counsel. The defendant was remanded into custody following his convictions. The Social Inquiry Report was filed on 23 rd February 2024. A Victim Impact Statement, dated 27 th February 2024 from the mother of the complainant, and a Victim Impact Statement, dated 28 th February 2024 from the complainant, were filed on 28 th February 2024. Written submissions were filed by Crown counsel on 28 th February 2024. Oral submissions were received on 29 th February 2024, and the matter now proceeds to sentencing.
The child complainant is the niece of the defendant. At all material times, they resided together with other family members at Magum Sandy Bay. The dwelling house belonged to the mother of the defendant, who was also the grandmother of the complainant. The complainant was born on 25 th July 2008. At the time of the incidents, she was between the age of 10 and 11 years. The defendant was born on 1 st November 2000. At the time of the incidents, he was between the age of 18 and 19 years.
The first incident occurred while the complainant was in grade 5 at the Sandy Bay Government School. One afternoon in 2018, she came home from school, and greeted her uncle, the defendant, who was playing an electronic game. He had a cast on one arm, caused by an accident that occurred in October 2018. The complainant proceeded to take a bath, dry herself with a towel, and move to her grandmother's room, while still wearing the towel, in order to select clothes that were kept there. The defendant entered the room and pushed her back on to the bed. He jammed the cast on his arm against her throat. He forced her legs open, while she struggled to keep them closed. The complainant said that he “nearly” pushed his penis into her vagina, but was interrupted when the complainant's grandmother was heard to call out to a neighbour outside of the house. The defendant let her go and left the room, saying nothing.
The second incident occurred one evening in 2018, while the complainant was still attending the Sandy Bay Government School. She was at home, doing puzzles in a book on her bed. She became tired, and pushed the book under her pillow, when the defendant entered the room. She knew it was him because the light from the TV in the other room, cast an illumination. She also recognized the smell of what she described as “weed” on him. She asked what he wanted. The defendant proceeded to place a pillow over her head and lay on top of her. She was face down on her stomach. He pulled down her pants and underwear, and pushed his penis inside her vagina. The complainant screamed “Stop,” “No,” “Don't do it,” “I don't want it.” But the defendant continued. He eventually came off her, removed the pillow, and stopped. The complainant cried herself to sleep. She got up to go to the bathroom, and after wiping herself, she saw a yellowish substance on the toilet paper she had used. The defendant slept on her bed that night. At one point, her grandmother entered the room, and asked the defendant why he was sleeping there. The defendant got up, retrieved his mattress, which was stored in the room, and left. He ordinarily slept on a mattress in the living room.
The third incident occurred in 2020. It happened during the night. The defendant entered the complainant's bedroom, pulled down her pants, and put his penis in her vagina. She began to cry, and tried to make him stop. He did not. After he finished, he pulled up her pants and underwear, and left. No condom was used by the defendant in any of these encounters.
Some time after the last incident, the complainant was doing revisions at school. She drew a vagina and a penis on her desk. This was seen by her teacher, who then took her to the principal. The complainant's grandmother, who worked in the school kitchen, was notified. The complainant was taken home. Her mother then contacted her by telephone, whereupon the complainant told her mother about what the defendant had done to her.
The police were notified by the complainant's mother, and an investigation began. The complainant was examined by a medical doctor, and witness statements were obtained.
Dr. Alberto Douglas examined the complainant on 2 nd July 2020. He noted there were no lacerations, and no abrasions in the genital area. No hymen was present. The findings, in particular, the absence of a hymen, were consistent with vaginal penetration by a penis. However, he could not say when that penetration may have occurred.
The defendant was arrested, and on 3 rd July 2020, he gave a statement to police under caution. The statement was audio video recorded. The defendant denied the allegations against him entirely. He maintained that nothing of a sexual nature ever occurred between he and the complainant. The defendant also testified at his trial, and again denied all of the allegations made against him. That position was, however, not accepted by the jury, and he was convicted on all counts.
The Social Inquiry Report was prepared by Case Worker, Angelique Foster. It confirms that the defendant is 23 years of age. He is in good health. By way of education, he completed form 4, before dropping out of school. He has worked in the construction field with his father, and was so employed before his incarceration on these charges. He has no prior criminal record.
The defendant was interviewed for the purpose of the report. He was calm and cooperative. The parents of the defendant separated when he was a youth. He had little contact with his father, remaining with his mother.
When asked about these offences, the defendant indicated that he did not do anything to the complainant. He denied the charges, and all allegations of sexual abuse. The report refers to these comments, indicating that, although the defendant was found guilty after trial, he did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, took no responsibility for his actions, and expressed no remorse. The court is careful, however, to note that while genuine remorse is a mitigating factor, a lack of remorse cannot be construed as an aggravating factor. At best, it is neutral, and in this case, that is how the court classifies the defendant's comments.
The father of the defendant, confirmed that the defendant often worked with him in his construction business. He stated that he was shocked to learn of the allegations made against his son.
The mother of the defendant, described her son as a quiet, reserved young man. She has a close relationship with him. She too was shocked to learn of the allegations made against her son. The complainant never said anything to her about what happened.
The sister of the defendant, advised that she had an “on and off” relationship with her brother. She described him as quiet and reserved, keeping to himself. She found it difficult to believe that the defendant would do the things he was convicted of.
It is clear from these interviews that the defendant has strong family support.
Prison authorities indicated that the defendant was well behaved, and gave them no trouble while incarcerated.
Interviews were conducted with members of the Sandy Bay community. The defendant was described as introverted. He kept to himself. He was further described as mannerly, respectful, quiet, and reserved. Local people advised that they were shocked and appalled to learn of these incidents.
The complainant is now 15 years old. She was between the age of 10 and 11 years at the time of the incidents. She told the author of the Social Inquiry Report that, although close to her grandmother, she was always too scared to say anything to her about what was happening. It was all too frightening for the complainant, although she was eventually able to confide in her mother. The impact these incidents have had upon the complainant has been enormous. Her life has been negatively affected. She felt like she was never going to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial