Sentence of death

The chain of events that led to this outcome bespeaks official failure at every link. In March 2004, when Emily would have been about one year of age, neighbours reported to the Marabella police that the baby was being beaten and tortured. So, contrary to what Assistant Police Commissioner Winston Cooper has implied, ordinary citizens cannot be blamed for Emily’s death. For ACP Cooper to assert that the law allows citizens to remove a child who is being abused is to ask too much of people, especially in a situation where the perpetrator is clearly psychotic.

The neighbours took a risk in even reporting the matter. But, having done their duty, it appears that the police did not do theirs, since the very next month Emily’s arm was broken. What made matters even worse is that the hospital appears to have treated her and returned her without query to her home, since the following month she “fell down a flight of stairs” — that favourite excuse of child abusers everywhere.

And, still, a whole year passed before the next official record, when Emily’s mother was charged with abandonment and neglect. So this little girl had to go through another 12 months of torture because of the benign pace of the police and other officials.

At that point, two-year-old Emily had five months of rare respite from beatings, burnings, and sexual abuse. She was placed in the Mothers’ Union Children’s Home in San Fernando from May to December. But, in November, Emily’s relatives applied for custody of the child. And, in December, a magistrate granted their application: thus passing a sentence of death on Emily.

And it is here that we come to the crux of the official failure. On what possible basis could this magistrate have given custody to Emily’s relatives. We hope that some bureaucratic snafu prevented him/her from seeing the medical and police records, because there is no way a rational and compassionate person, seeing Emily’s history, could have put this baby back in her relative’s cruel care. And yet, even without the records, did the magistrate not inquire as to why the child was in a safe-house in the first place? We know that magistrates have to hear hundreds of cases, but surely the fact that an infant was involved should have made him/her pay special attention.

We speak here merely from what common sense suggests. If, however, the magistrate had good reasons for the decision, we think that the public should hear them. But, if the reasons prove unsound, then we think the Chief Magistrate should start proceedings to have this individual investigated and disciplined, if not removed for gross incompetence.

Would such a response be draconian? Perhaps. But a large part of the reason why systems do not improve is because individuals are not held accountable when they perform incompetently. A little girl was tortured, raped and murdered. Police officers, doctors, and social workers all share in the blame for this. But a specific magistrate played a key role in letting it happen. Unless he/she can show that he/she cannot be held responsible in some way, he/she must face the consequences.