Stiff sentence for sex predator upheld

A man who was charged two years ago after having sex with a 12-year-old-girl and was convicted, lost his appeal yesterday and had his sentence of 15 years hard labour affirmed. Carl Jones was found guilty by a Port-of-Spain First Assize Court jury and sentenced on January 9, 2002, by Justice Herbert Volney for having sex with the girl at Alexander Street in Longdenville, Chaguanas, six year ago. The court, comprising Justices Lionel Jones (president), Rolston Nelson and Stanley John, noted that these sort of offences have become far too prevalent in society and suggested that a strong message be sent to offenders.

The court also noted that the incident would probably leave the girl traumatised for the rest of her life. Five grounds of appeal, including one against the sentence, were argued before the court by attorney Dana Seetahal. She argued that the trial judge had failed to give the jury a warning about corroboration and that the judge had misdirected the jury on burden of proof and also on the approach in determining issue of facts and credibility. Seetahal also complained that the sentence was too severe in light of Jones’ age, over 60, and his previous good character. The court dismissed those grounds, but invited special prosecutor Devan Rampersad to respond to one of the points in which Seetahal submitted that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the judge did not present Jones’ defence in a balanced manner.

Following Rampersad’s res-ponse, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Jones to start his sentence from yesterday. The facts of the case were that sometime between June 1 and 10, 1998, Jones had called the girl into his room, kissed her lips and fondled her breasts, before having sex with her. Some two years later, while at her grandparents’ home, a report was made to the police on May 31, 2000. Jones denied the charge, claiming that he did not have a good relationship with the girl’s father and that her grandparents had encouraged her to give false information against him. He also claimed that at the time of the incident, he was not a resident at the girl’s home. Jones’ common-law wife, Mary, corroborated her husband’s story about not living at the child’s home at the material time. Mary also testified that the girl did not tell her anything about such an incident. The court will give its reasons in a written judgment at a later date.