Rapist loses appeal

The Court of Appeal was not persuaded by legal arguments yesterday that a trial judge faulted in his summation, and affirmed a 25 year sentence inposed on Edward Anderson for raping a 17-year-old girl. The court, led by Justice of Appeal Margot Warner, also affirmed two other sentences imposed on Anderson out of the same matter — ten years for buggery and five years for serious indecency. These sentences, which are to run concurrently, were ordered to start as of yesterday.  Anderson’s defence was that he could not have had sex with the girl because he was shot “under his balls” and was impotent as a result of a piece of his penis also being shot off. The evidence of the girl was that she was buggered, made to performed oral sex and then raped by Anderson.

All of this happened in broad daylight under a mango tree in the Caura hills. Attorney Bindra Dolsingh, who argued the appeal for Anderson, claimed that the fact that Anderson had testified that he had gone to the home of a friend at St Augustine and later changed to St Joseph, was a discrepancy. But the way the trial judge had put it across to the jury, the jury  could have inadvertently used it as corroboration or support of the evidence of the girl in identifying Anderson as the person who raped her. Special prosecutor Dana Seetahal, while not admitting, suggested that even if the judge was slightly wrong, his summation could have been more favourable to Anderson. She said the summation was fair and that the judge had repeated on three occasions that the case for the prosecution rested solely on the evidence of the girl, and they must approach it with caution and be sure of the guilt of Anderson before returning a verdict against him. She insisted that this was not a case of imbalance directions.

The court, which included Justices Warner, Rolston Nelson and Wendell Kangaloo, dismissed the appeal, affirmed the sentences, promising to give their reasons at a later date. The facts of the case was that about 1.30 pm on August 14, 1998, the girl and her boyfriend went to the Caura River, Tacarigua, when they were approached by Anderson who asked them if they had seen anyone passing. They replied no. Anderson left but returned soon after claiming that someone had stolen his “weed” and he was looking for them. Although the couple denied knowing anything about the “weed,” Anderson proceeded to search the couple’s bags. At the time he was armed with a cutlass. After the search, Anderson ordered the couple to walk further into the Caura hills. While walking, the girl’s boyfriend ran off into the bushes and disappeared.

Anderson then pulled out a gun and threatened the girl. “Well, you surely going to dead today.” The girl began to cry and wanted to go home but Anderson pushed her forward. After walking for about an hour they reached an open spot where Anderson told the girl that they were going by a certain mango tree. He made her spread her beach towel on the ground, take off her clothes and lie on her chest. He buggered her, forced her to perform oral sex twice on him and then raped her. He then ordered the girl to put on her clothes and told her to run, indicating that her boyfriend had gone to get the police. In his defence, Anderson claimed that in 1994 he had been robbed and shot and received injuries “under his balls.” As a result, a piece of his penis was shot off and he was impotent and incapable of the sexual assaults. The medical evidence showed that he sustained pellet gunshot wounds to the scrotum, but there was no mention of testicles nor an opinion as to whether he would have been impotent as a result.