Uncle to learn fate for raping niece

Five years ago he committed incest with his niece and got her pregnant. On Tuesday, that man appeared in Supreme Court No. 4A, before Justice Donna Babb-Agard, where both the defence and the prosecutor made submissions regarding his sentencing.

Last July 30, the uncle pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with the then 12-year-old girl between September 1 and 30, 2020, knowing she was his niece by blood relationship. He was 37 at the time.

Defence attorney Rita Evans began her submissions by referring to the psychologist’s report, which showed that her client had difficulty in understanding and responding to questions, even basic ones like his date of birth.

She also referred to a report from the Probation Department, in which the man’s mother confirmed that he started to walk at 18 months old and his speech was delayed. Additionally, as a child he fell and hit the back of his head, and his speech and cognitive skills were not on par with his peers.

“He never reached the developmental milestones he should have,” the lawyer said, adding that he was illiterate, with underdeveloped verbal expression. “When he was asked to give an account of what happened, he really was not able to say.”

Evans submitted that the fact he lacked awareness of the offence and was unable to explain its nature showed “he has not fully grasped the implications” which could possibly occur.

She said it was also an indication that he “poses no immediate threat to himself or others”. His actions had more been influenced by his “limited, cognitive ability rather than malicious intent”, counsel continued. Taking that into consideration, she suggested a starting point at no more than seven years.

Evans said it was the man’s first offence, he pleaded guilty and did not waste the court’s time, and his presentencing report indicated it was very unlikely he would reoffend. She said that had his underlying issues been addressed during his childhood, “we would likely not have been here today”.

Noting the effect her client’s actions had on the entire family, including “embarrassment and ridicule”, she conceded that the girl’s life had “changed forever and can never go back to what it was”.

In her turn, Principal State Counsel Joyann Catwell reminded the court that the penalty for incest if committed by an adult with a person under the age of 14, was life imprisonment. She said the custodial threshold had been passed in this case and called for a 20year starting point.

She argued that the victim was 12 at the time of the incident, and her physical and sexual immaturity made her vulnerable; whereas he was 37 and committed the act in the girl’s home.

In the prosecutor’s view, in cases of a sexual nature, the significant disparity in age often indicated exploitation, abuse of power and the predatory nature of the offender.

She added that the convicted man had used force; caused the girl great pain; impregnated her; as only a firstformer she lost the chance to continue her education; and she was placed in the custody of the Child Care Board, where she felt further traumatised.

The prosecutor continued that the repeated incidents of sexual intercourse with the girl, who was not sexually active prior, had exposed her to both pregnancy and possible disease.

She said her father experienced anger and felt betrayed, while the girl reported that after the incident, she experienced embarrassment, ridicule and bullying from maternal family members, with some blaming her for the assault. As a result, she became aggressive because of the anxiety and stress, and felt hatred towards the baby after its birth.

Catwell said the girl’s school life was affected as she was verbally harassed in person and online from other students, ended up without friends and never got to complete her formal education.

Regarding the uncle, she said the State agreed he had no previous convictions and his psychological report showed him as being emotionally disorganised, cognitively impaired, unable to provide an understanding of the basic definition of his offence and completely unaware of the seriousness of his actions.

With that in mind, she suggested a downward adjustment of two years to the starting point, making it 18 years instead, along with a discount for his guilty plea and fairly good presentencing report.

The convicted man, who expressed remorse and shame, will be sentenced on March 27. He continues on remand until then.