Why so long to report offence on person?

THE EDITOR: It was quite troubling to read in today’s (19.03.04) newspaper the story of a man being jailed for 15 years for the alleged “rape” of a 12-year-old girl. If maybe that the charge was “Having sex with a minor under 14 years” or “Statutory rape” as some people refer to the offence but all boils down to the same thing. What in fact was troubled and indeed troubling is the fact that the 12-year-old alleged that between 1.6.96 and 10.6.96 the offences took place at her home. Yet she did not report the matter until 31.5.98 exactly two years later and of course the matter took another two years to come to trial thus the victim would have been four years older and be more receptive to “persuasions” and/or “suggestions” or even “advice” by persons bent on supporting the victim.

Anyone reading the story must ask themselves “why did it take two years to report that crime”? What happened to prevent her from reporting the matter immediately to her parents, family or even teachers at school? Very very sad that that question was not answered in the report. I have no idea as to who appeared for the man at his trial but any attorney with experience would have 700 reasons why that serious matter was not reported. She should have been asked to recall in minute detail every action for every day during her waking hours. In his defence the accused not only denied the allegation but so far as he could recall he was at home on the relevant date and called his wife who testified on oath supporting her husband that so far as she knew he was at home with her on the date and at the time of the alleged offence.

Now that is a very serious situation, because the cynics will always say “Oh well, that’s his wife what do you want her to say she must support him” and dismiss her evidence out of hand. But as one Law Lord said in the famous “Turnbull case” (well known to lawyers) if a man’s defence is that he was not where the prosecution says he was and that he was in fact at his home in bed with his wife, who else but the wife can he call as a witness?”

What makes the matter more disturbing is the fact no man except a person who records his movements like a policeman at a station or a lawyer at court can safely say today where he was and what did he do two years ago and how and with who did he have lunch or have a drink. That is why when assisting a person to recall an event of the distant past one asks was it between Xmas and Carnival or between Carnival and Easter or between Easter and Emancipation or Independence and so.

Also by the recall of some important event. For example I can recall clearly where I was and what I was doing and with whom at 6.30 pm on July 27, 1990 (Coup by Muslimeen) but cannot recall what I did on July 26, 1990 and so it is with most people. If there was DNA evidence in this case the result may not have been so disturbing. Two months ago the Honourable Mr Justice Volney while sentencing a man who had been found guilty of an offence in respect of which the identification evidence appeared to be sketchy, publicly suggested that there should have been DNA evidence to assist the prosecution.

Seems that the Learned Judge was not quite happy with the quality of the identification evidence presented by the prosecution. Seems to me that in such a case the Judge ought to have taken the case away from the Jury. In the case reported today if defence Counsel had sought 700 reasons why the offence was not reported for two years then the Trial Judge may himself have withdrawn the case from the Jury.

ATTA K O KUJIFI
Port-of-Spain