Appeal court affirms 15-year rape sentence

“THE COURTS must take a strong stand to stamp out sexual violations against the nation’s youths, since it leaves a scar in the young victim’s life that can seldom be erased,” stated Appeal Court Judge Lionel Jones just minutes before refusing a Chaguanas man leave to appeal a 15-year rape sentence. The court noted that it had found no merit to the appeal filed by Chaguanas resident Carl Jones and upheld the conviction and 15-year sentence. Jones was convicted by the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court in January 2002, of  raping his 13-year-old female relative in June, 1998.

In a 10-page written judgment delivered by Justice Jones yesterday it was noted that this type of offence was becoming too prevalent in our society. He pointed out that the offence was committed against  a 13-year-old girl, who was violated by a male relative in a position of trust. In the judgment, the Appeal Court, comprising Justice Jones, Justice Rolston Nelson and Justice Stanley John, explained it had found no merit in the grounds of appeal filed by Jones through his attorney Dana Seetahal. The appeal was filed on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge did not sum up Jones’ case fairly or in a balanced manner to the jury and that he exercised unreasonable discretion when he failed to caution the jury on convicting Jones on the corroborated evidence of the victim in the circumstances of the case.

It also claimed that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the burden of proof when he told them the jury the “allegations are very easy to make and very difficult to disprove” and “it is very difficult for a man to disprove such an allegation.” The third grounds stated that the judge misdirected the jury on the proper approach to take in determining the issues of facts and credibility, when he urged them to use “your knowledge of men and their affairs, your motherly instincts, your female instincts ....” The final grounds of appeal was that the 15-year sentence was too severe in light of his age and previous good character.

In refusing leave, the court explained it had found no merit to the grounds filed, noting that the trial judge was very clear in his directions on the question of the victim’s delay in reporting the matter and the credibility of the victim. The Justices also noted that there was nothing that prevented Jones from getting a fair trial and further noted that it was the trial judge’s duty to present the defence case as fairly as possible, but not to raise issues which did not arise for consideration. On the severity of the sentence, the court found that the fact that there was no violence used in the offence was not a mitigating factor in the circumstances of the case.

The State’s case was that sometime between June 1 and 30, 1998 Jones took the young girl into a bedroom of their home and fondled her breasts, after which he had sexual intercourse with her. The young girl was in pain and protested until he finished the act. Two years later the incident was reported to the Chaguanas Police and the victim was examined by Dr. Jeelal. Jones was arrested and charged with the offence in June 2000. In defence Jones denied having sex with the girl claiming that she had fabricated the story against him because he (Jones) and the girl’s grandfather did not get along. He also stated that the grandfather had encouraged her to make the false complaint. Jones also denied that he was living in the same house as the victim at the time of the incident. The State was represented in the matter by Devan Rampersad.