printed by allayania.hendricks@gmail.com (Corporate edition) ID vLex: 936985879 http://ttvlex.com/vid/the-state-v-grannum-936985879 The State v Grannum Patrick Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago Judge: Madame Justice Nalini Singh Judgment Date: 31 March 2023 jeutral Citation: T7 2023 HC 95 Docket Number: CR No, CR-HC-TGO-IND-15-2021 1 (CR T51/2016) Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) Case Analysis (sm ) Pomered by Vincent A Legal issue Did the accused commit the offenses of rape, buggery, grievous senual assault, and indecent assault? Headnote CCRIMINAL LAW. SEXUAL OFFENCES. The case involves a judge-alone trial and sentencing for charges of rape, buggery, grievous sexual assault, and indecent assault. The court heard evidence regarding the accused's actions towards the complainant, including instances of non-consensual sexual acts, The judge found the accused guilty on multiple counts and imposed concurrent sentences of imprisonment with hard labor. The judge also ordered the accused to report as a sex offender and for relevant information to be published on the Public Sex Offender Website Categories crime and sentencing criminal practice rape Show allKey Phrases Rape, buggery, grievous sexual assault, indecent assault judge alone trial, sentence, facts, law, evidence, accused, biological father, lving arrangements, sexual acts, lack of consent, aggravating factor, mitigating factors, imprisonment, concurrent sentences, sex offender registration, reporting obligations. PDF ‘The State and Grannum Patrick Before The Honourable Madame Justice Nalini Singh CR No. CR-HC. f HIGH CO! CRIMINAL DIVISION TOBAGO REPRESENTATIO} Mr. Azim Walters for the Accused Ms. Charmaine Samuel and Mr. Dylan Martin appeared for the State REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE COURT IN JUDGE ALONE TRIAL & SENTENCE, 1 The accused is charged with committing rape, buggery, grievous sexual assault and indecent assault on the person of MS on the 2 ™4 October 2016. The accused also stands charged of ault on the said MS, on the 17 October 2016. committing rape and grievous sexual asFunction of the Judge 2 The accused elected to have the charges determined by a Judge. I have therefore sat in this case as the judge of the facts and law. My function in this trial has been twofold. I have had to. find the facts and draw inferen from them. I have so had to apply the law to the facts that I have found. In performing this function, I did not decide every disputed point that was raised in the trial — only those that were necessary for me to reach my verdict on the six charges before the Court. The Evidence 3 MS told the Court that after her mother died, she went to live with the a knew to be her biological father. This was in July or August 2016. She said that the reason she left the home where she once lived with her now deceased mother and stepfather, was because the Accused told her that her step-siblings did not want him there. ‘cused who she 4, There were three bedrooms in the home of the Accused. According to MS, she took all of the furniture, curtains, wears, carpets and rugs. It was everything that the home of the Accused could accommodate. These things were packed into the three bedrooms at the home of the ‘Accused. As a result, MS and the Accused slept in the living room. MS occupied a two-seater couch whilst the Accused slept on a three-seater couch. 5 On the night of the 2 "4 October 2016, some four months after moving in, MS testified that the accused told her that he had had visions that she was pregnant. He asked her to raise her blouse so he could see if she was pregnant. MS complied and that was when the accused started to feel her breast. He said it was feeling heavy. MS told the Court that when the Accused did this she felt scared. The accused then moved his hand lower down MS's stomach. He continued to move his hand a little lower to what MS calls a “piece of fat that was there” since her mother was alive. He then ed demanding way to remove her pants and tights, MS said she felt scared but she complied. ked if she was pregnant for Sean. MS said no. The Ac her ina 6 The Accused proceeded to touch MS's vagina. MS was scared at the time and did not consent to him doing this to her. He demanded that she pass to him, the red roughrider condom which was on the dining table. She did and the Accused took the condom, and placed it on a perfumebottle which he then used to rub on her clitoris. When this was happening MS was seated on the three-seater couch and the Accused was almost kneeling in front of MS. He then told her to open her legs. He got between them and placed his finger inside her vagina, in an in-and-out motion. According to MS, this went on for a few seconds to a few minutes. Whilst this was happening, MS was scared and she told the Court that she did not consent to the Accused placing his finger into her vagina. 7 The Accused then placed his mouth on her vagina and he started “eating” her clitoris”. The Accused continued for three to five minutes. During this time MS told the Court that she was seared and did not move. She was still as she froze. At some point, the Accused bit MS on her clitoris and she exclaimed “ouch!”. 8 The Accused then got up, and demanded that MS lie down. MS complied and lay down on the three-seater couch. MS remembers that there was a piece of curtain over one of the windows and the Accused asked her to lie down in the direction of the curtain so that no one ‘would see her from the outside. He then put on a cream-coloured condom on his erect penis and kissed MS on her lips. He sucked, bit and pulled her breast and her nipples. He continued by kissing her tummy and her legs and at that point, he placed his erect penis into MS's vagina. ‘At this time the Accused was on top of MS and he was pushing his erect penis in and out of MS's vagina. Whilst this was happening MS testified that she felt scared. She told the Court that she did not consent to this and said that it felt like it went on for an hour or a few hours. 9 MS says that the next thing that happened was that the Accused asked her to put on a pornographic film. She slid the dise into the DVD player. MS said that the Accused then demanded that she do everything in the pornographic movie. At this time the Accused was sitting on the three-seater couch. MS sat astride him and faced him. The television was six feet away and was positioned in front of the Acc around so that her back faced him whilst he held firmly onto her. :d. At some point the Accused made MS turn. 10 The Accused demanded then, that MS bend over the back of the one-seater couch. When she did this, the Accused placed his erect penis with the condom on it, into her anus. She said it felt painful. She was scared and did not consent to this. It went on for what felt like seconds to minutes. MS told the Court that she told the Accused: “Get off of me. Don't touch me and don'tspeak to me again.” The Accused said nothing in response. He went into the middle room, retrieved MS's clothes and handed them to her. She put on her clothes and she said to him that she would tell hi y anything. ter what had happened and the Accused begged her not to 11 At some point, MS went to sleep on the two-seater couch and went to work the following day. MS said she was feeling guilty and spoke to her friend at work but did not make a police report. She said she went home that day and packed some things and clothes in a bag and waited for her aunt to come from Trinidad to meet her. MS's aunt came late that night and MS. told her what had happened. MS's aunt told her not to say anything to the police. MS complied because she was scared. MS then left with her aunt to stay at the aunt's place. 11.1 Recent Complaint At this point, I remind myself of the learning contained in the cases of Gabriel v. The State Cr. App. No. 30 of 2005, Anthony Diaz v. The State (1989) 42 WIR 425 and White v. R [1999] 1 Cr. App. R 153. Accordingly, I do not consider the evidence of MS repeating the complaint of rape as confirmation of the commission of the offence, At its highest, it has provided me with an idea of the background circumstances of MS leaving the home of the Accused to stay with her aunt on the night of the 3" October 2016. I am clear in my mind that the evidence of MS recounting the events to her aunt does not confirm her complaint of rape, buggery, grievous sexual assault and indecent assault which she said occurred on the 2 " October 2016. Indeed the repetition does not make her evidence true or accurate. 12 MS spent four days at her aunt's home before she returned to the home of the Accused to retrieve some clean clothes. MS said that she ended up staying at the home of the Accused because he was looking very sick. In cross-examination, MS admitted that he had diarrhoea. And so, MS told the Court that she remained there out of concern for him. She said during this time she cooked for the Accused. 13 The case for the State then goes to the 16 October 2016. On that day, MS went to work for 8 AM and stayed there until 4 PM. She said at that time she was feeling empty and scared about everything and being the nd not reporting anything. 14She told the Court that at about 9 PM that day, she and the Accused went to a wake. They returned home after midnight. MS put on her nighty and went to sleep. At some point whilst MS was was the Accused. He told her that he wanted some sex. He said it in a demanding and leep that night, she felt as though someone was waking her up and shaking her. It desperate manner. 15 MS said that at this point she felt scared and empty. MS then said that she saw the Accused sitting on the three-seater couch. His penis was erect and he asked her to squeeze his nipples. She complied. The Accused pulled MS closer and squeezed her nipples. She did not consent to him squeezing her nipples. She felt scared. 16 The Accused then demanded that MS come closer so that he could examine her vagina. MS. complied. The Accused then touched her vagina. He told her to play with his erect penis, even though he was masturbating, and to sit on his erect penis. MS told the Court that she sat on top of his erect penis and at the time she was scared and in a lot of pain. According to her she was stressed out and never consented to sit on the erect penis of the Accused. The Accused then asked MS to replay the pornographic movie and she did. She remained on the ereet penis of the ‘Accused for a few minutes. 17 After this, the Accused took the cushions from the two-seater couch and placed them on the floor. He then placed a cream Rough Rider condom on his erect penis. At this time MS was laying on her back on the cushions. The Accused then placed his erect penis, with the condom on it, into her vagina. The Accused asked MS to hug him, but she could not because of the position of her hands. The Accused moved in and out of MS's vagina and in a circular motion. It went on for hours according to MS. 18 Atsome point during the sexual intercourse the Accused told Ms that if she reported it to the police, he would put a tyre over himself, tie a rope onto the tyre and onto a piece of brick, and sink himself into the bottom of the ocean. MS said that he kept on having sex with her, and then he came to an end. She said she never consented to this and the entire time she felt scared and in pain. Sometime after the Accused placed MS's clothes on her and threw a sheet on her. MS remained on the floor and slept there for the night. 19The next day, MS got up, organised herself for work and the Accused dropped her down the hill, by the junction, for her to catch a car to head to work. This is one fact that the Court notes that is not disputed by the Accused as he agreed that he dropped her down the hill that day so that she could get a car to go to work. 20 At work, MS spoke to her friend and the friend gave her, her sister's number. The sister was a woman police officer. MS said she did not report the matter right away and only went to the police a few weeks later. She gave her report to WPC Small. The reason advanced for this delay according to MS was that her aunt told her not to go to the police station and report it to the police. She also said that another reason she did not report it was because of what the Accused told her about what he would do to himself with the rope, the tyre, and the bricks and how he ‘would kill himself. She said this caused her to get scared. 20.1 Delay At this point, I note that there has been a delay of sixty-six days in the reporting of this matter to the police. The offences in this trial are alleged to have occurred on the 2 "4 October 2016 and the 17" October 2016. MS made the report to the police on the 6 “ December 2016. This means there was a delay of sixty-six days before MS told the police about the alleged offences. I am mindful that in this case, there is a significant consequence to this delay. It is the impact this delay has had on the ability of the Accused to defend himself against these charges. 20.2 In assessing the evidence in this case I have therefore had regard to the following, significant considerations. 20.3 Regarding the impact this delay has had on the ability of the Accused to defend himself against these charges, the Court starts from the position that ther to prove anything in this case. Against that backdrop I am mindful of the fact that the Accused has: is no burden on the Accused Thave also considered the following: Thave taken all of these disadvantages into consideration in determining whether the Prosecution has proved Grannum Patrick's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.a. Lost the opportunity to make enquiries at, or close to, the time of the alleged incidents. b. Lost the ability to explore the alleged circumstances in detail soon after the offences were said to have occurred. Such an exploration may have uncovered evidence which could have thrown doubt upon the complainant's allegations and or confirm the Accused's denial of, the charges. c. Lost the means of testing MS's allegations which would have been available had there been no delay in prosecution. 4. MS would not have been medically examined close to the time of the alleged offences, to provide evidence contradicting the allegations such as expert evidence establishing the probability of detectable injury in the circumstances described by the complainant. e. Witnesses who may have been able to give evidence contradicting MS's allegation can no longer remember relevant details. In this regard, I remind myself specifically of the evidence of the witness called by the accused. 20.4 There has also been a delay in the trial of this case. The alleged offences are said to have occurred in October 2016. Through no fault of the Accused, the trial into this case occurred at the beginning of March 2023. This means that the delay in the commencement of the trial is almost seven years from the date of the alleged offences. Regarding the effect of the delay on the reliability of the evidence of the witnesses in this case, I remind myself that the honest recoll before may be unreliable. I remind myself that the passage of time may affect any witness's memory. In some cases people simply forget things, in other cases, their memory may become distorted. That is, they may come to remember things that did not really happen. Human recollection is frequently erroneous and liable to distortion in this way. The likelihood of this error inert considering evidence that was given after such a long delay. I have also taken this potential for unreliability into account in determining whether I could accept the evidence of the witnesses in this that evidence. ‘tions of the witnesses about events that they believed to have occurred many years with delay. I have taken this potential for unreliability into account when at all, and if I did accept it, in whole or in part, in deciding what weight to give to. 20.5In making this assessment I carefully considered not only whether the evidence of the witnesses was honest, in the sense that they believe it to be true, but also whether it was in fact true. [have used my common sense and experience in assessing the effect of the delay upon the memory of the witnesses in this case and I have also considered the possibility that the witnesses may honestly believe what they are testifying to, but are actually mistaken due to the distortion of their memory. 21 Back to the evidence for the State, MS testified that after she gave the report to the police, she sought medical attention and moved out of the home of the Accused. 22 In cross-examination, MS stated that she saw the name of the Accused listed as her biological father. She agreed that before her mother died, he spent time with her and bought her snacks. She agreed that her father took her to Bob's Supermarket and the last time she ‘went there was when she was seventeen years old. By way of context, the alleged offences are said to have occurred when MS was eighteen years old. One of the shop attendants at the supermarket was a woman by the name of Alicia Burnett. Both the State and the Defence agreed that there was an attendant at Bob's Supermarket. MS was asked whether Alicia Burnett asked her why she was reporting her father to the police and accusing him of rape. MS said she never asked her this. It was put to MS that she told Alicia Burnett: "I just fighting him because he did not treat my mother well hate him because for her — because of my mother.” MS denied that this conversation ever took place. 23 Another issue which was ré with MS in cross-examination was whether the both of her parents had a stressful effect on her. She admitted that she had to seek counselling. Specifically, she saw a psychiatrist for depression and post-traumatic symptoms. I formed the view that the fact of MS receiving psychiatric care did not detract from her reliability and credibility in this case. ing of 24 MS agreed that she had had a discussion with her father concerning his house. She said that that discussion took place when the Accused called her at work. According to MS, he told her that he was leaving certain things for his children and she would have to share his house with the rest of his children. MS said that this made her feel angry. This is how she explained it:“That call was being made to me after Tve been raped by him on one of the days that I went to work. Tam being honest, God ‘be my judge. That isthe reason why I got angry with him for that” 24.1 Post-Conduct Behaviour The Court used this evidence, as evidence that the Accused believed that he committed all the offences charged. I reminded myself that I was able to treat this evidence in this manner because I found that this was the only reasonable explanation for the Accused calling MS in the middle of the day whilst she was at work to talk about what she could gain from him in the future. In so doing, I understood that even though I found that the Accused believed that he committed the offence charged, I still had to consider all the evidence when deciding whether the prosecution proved the Accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 24.2 Before acting on this evidence, I was also mindful of the fact that there are all sorts of reasons why a person might behave in a way that makes him look guilty. This meant that the Accused may have called MS in the middle of her work day to talk about what she stood to inherit in the future from him even though he was not guilty of any of the offences with which now stands charged. For example, he could have made to call to reassure her that if something should happen to him she would still have a home in which to stay and she would not have to. relocate as she did when her mother passed. Having considered this, I did not find it to be a reasonable inference. 25 Back to the evidence, MS was asked whether she told the Accused to give her the entire house because his children were “foreign. They fixed.” MS said that she could not recall saying, that. 26 MS was also asked in cross-examination that since she was working, living with someone she was scared of, and staying at a place where she did not have a bed to sleep on, she was traumatized, depressed, was suffering from PTSD, if it ever crossed her mind to get somewhere to rent. She responded that she was scared. Counsel then asked MS why she did not report the matter to the police. MS repeated that she was scared. Counsel then asked this: “Prightened of what, after you leave the house? You can’t be scared of him because he told you if you go tothe police, he will all himselt. That works in your favour, doesnt it? And you get the house. Your problem goes away because he kill himself and ‘the house is therefor you because the rest of children is foreign,27 Counsel then asked MS whether she screamed or shouted during any of the incidents. MS stated that she tried screaming and telling him to get off of her but he did not. In fact, during the incident which forms the basis of the second count, MS said the Accused told her to “Hush mih mouth and keep quiet.” When it was pointed out that there were two other houses in the yard where the Accused lived, with one of them being as close as 12 feet away, MS stated that at the time the Accused was playing music. 28 Defence counsel also raised another opportunity MS could have taken to get out of the situation she was in. MS was asked why she didn't run when she saw the Accused starting to get naked. She said that the front door was locked. 29 Defence Counsel also enquired from MS if she knew an option was to kick the Accused during the incidents. 29.1 Assumptions At this point I remind myself that I must avoid making assumptions about how an alleged victim must behave in particular situations. I have reminded myself not to jump to any conclusion that there is one uniformed way for alleged victims to react. As human beings, we are all different, we all have different backgrounds, lives, different ways of coping with stress or trauma, and how one might react or think one may react is not the way another person may react. As such I did not think that the fact that MS did not look for somewhere else to live, or scream loudly enough or did not run at the first sign of something untoward, automatically affected her credibility and reliability adversely. 29.2 I bear this reminder in mind as well when I consider the evidence concerning a consensual sexual encounter which MS said occurred between herself and the Accused. This is what came out in cross-examination:"Q; Sols there any occasion when you both had sex with your consent? ‘A: That was the second time. That was the time before the time when he came on top of me, Q: Right. So the answer tothe question is yes. Who initiated that sex? ‘A: 1 ask him for that, just for us — just to forget about everything that ever had happen, because it was looking lke if he wanted to come at me, "THE COURT: It was looking like if he what? If he want? "THE WINESS: Like ihe would have come at me for sex again ‘BY MR. WALTERS: Q; But you sad you were feeling horny, instead of clling— A: He was — he was feling homy too. I could ave seen it in his ees, hs face his posture Q: Ms. MS, there is no tablet that you can take for your eyes to stand up. There is nothing you can drink for you to see you're feeling horny from your eyes. ‘THE COURT: What isthe point here, Mr. Walters? ‘BY MR. WALTERS: Q: The point 1am making is, you wanted to have sex, if we are to believe you that sex happened. The point fs, Ms. MS, these are all fragments of your imagination A: Noit was not.” The next day in cross examination this came out in evidence: you went to work, you came home, you laid doven, you were feeling horny and you were fighting it because you started to pray. Aves." Tagain remind myself that there is no one uniformed way for alleged victims to react. As human beings, we are all different, we all have different backgrounds, lives, different ways of coping with stress or trauma, and how one might react or think one may react is not the way another person may react. In this regard, I remind myself that MS had just lost her mother. Her step-father had already passed away as well, She had no siblings and the only living parent she had left was the Accused. She was already affected by the death of her mother to the extent that she was still in counselling. Added to this the Accused threatened to kill himself if she reported him to anyone. It is open to this Court to find as a fact that there was a sexual encounter between MS and the Accused and it was initiated by MS and I so find. The only logical inference to be drawn is that she must have felt that this was the only way to keep her last surviving parent alive and in her life. This would also explain why she would have left her aunt's house and returned to the Accused's house to take care of him once she knew that he was sick. 30The case for the State continued with the evidence that the accused was later arrested and cautioned and told of his rights and privileges. He replied “That is not true.” In response to the second allegation he stated that “I never did that.”... “As you said, I don't have to say anything,” Upon being charged he remained silent. 30.1 Right to Remain Silent Iremind myself that the Accused has a right to remain silent. I have therefore not used his silence upon being charged against him in any way. The fact that a person chooses not to speak to the police does not mean that he has something to hide, or is guilty of some offence. It cannot provide the basis for drawing any unfavourable inferences. To use an Accused person's silence in such a way would be to undermine a fundamental right provided by the law. 30.2 Lalso did not use against the Accused the fact that he did not tell the police that he knew of what Alysia Burnett had found out from MS about her fabricating the charge. Indeed from the evidence, he would have come by this information after he was charged. In any event, it is his right to remain silent. I therefore remind myself that it is for the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the Accused is not required to provide the police with any information to prove his innocence. As such, I have not concluded from the fact that the Accused did not raise the defence at a time earlier than his defence statement, to automatically mean that his defence is an invention, nor have I drawn any other inferences against the Accused for failing to mention it to the police. In fact I did not even consider the fact that the Accused did not tell the police about that information when deciding whether the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 31 The Police Investigator testified that she took photographs of the outside of the Accused’s house. No photographs were ever taken of the inside of the home of the Accused. No search warrant was ever executed to find any of the objects MS mentioned the Accused used on her. The Court also learnt from the Doctor who was called by the State -Dr. Ferguson, that at the ‘nted no DNA ally had a male witness -Barry Bacchus to testify on his behalf. The witness showed up at the VAC Centre and remained for a while. When it was time for him to testify he could not be found and calls to his phone went unanswered. The Defence elected to continue with their other witness.31.1 Failure to Present Additional Evidence Tremind myself not to speculate about what the photographs may have shown or what the DNA results might have been had samples been taken and testing conducted or what a search warrant might have turned up. I also remind myself not to speculate about what the witness for the accused Barry Bacchus might have said if he had given evidence. I have decided this case solely on the evidence which has been given in court. 32 When the Accused testified, he stated that he was married and his wife died. He said that he was not certain that MS was his child as he never got a DNA test. He also stated that at the time he was sexually involved with MS's mother, she was living with another man so he isn’t one hundred percent sure that MS is his daughter. 33 This notwithstanding, the Accused stated that he contributed to her care by providing milk, pampers, and whatever medical thing MS needed from the time MS was a baby. He said that he maintained communication with MS's mother whilst she was alive. He said she told him that she was not well and that in case anything happened to her, she wanted him to take care of MS for her. According to the Accused that is what he did. He said he moved into the house MS originally lived in with her mother and stepfather but they had to relocate after the owner of the property made it clear that MS and the Accused could only stay there as long as MS was in school. 34 When asked about MS's counselling, the Accused stated that it seemed to him that she was getting worse. He explained that she was becoming very angry and bitter whenever he spoke to her. He said that he felt that it was because of him that she was angry. He said that MS blamed him for her mother's death and she actually told him that he was part of the cause of her mother's death because he was dating another woman and she did not approve of the lady. He disagreed that he moved a lot of things to his home. According to him, it was just two mattresses, a stereo and a deep freeze. He said MS slept in the middle room. Her chest of drawe and everything she needed were th 35 He said that his usual routine was that he would get up at 3 AM to go to work. He wa government worker. According to him “I works on the highway so I does go out early to do my job.” When the police told the Accused about the allegations he said that he felt bad because he was out working with a guy who had a job to fence a place for a lady in Logwood Park. Again athe Court reminds itself that there was no obligation on the Accused to tell the police this information. The Court also notes that this is not contained in the Defence Statement in this matter but no negative inference is made in this regard. 36 The Accused mentioned that one day MS went out with some friends and when she came back home at around midnight, he asked her “Where did you come from at this hour? Because you tell me you going one place, I pass some place else and see. So tell me what you was doing there.” He said she “swell up and she start mumbling some things” he couldn't understand but he knew she wasn't pleased. He said that after this MS went into her room. 37 The Accused told the Court that there were instances where MS kept coming in late over and over, and when she came home she was always on the phone. He said she told him that she ‘was a “big woman now. She could do whatever she wants.” The Accused told her “Not in my house. I would not stand for that because I need my rest. I has to get up to go to work early.” According to the Accused MS got angry. The Accused also spoke of instances when MS would leave home and not return until two or three days later. He said that when he spoke to her, her response wasn't nice so he stopped telling her anything. 38 The Accused went on to tell the Court that he has never been before the court on any charges save a seatbelt ticket which he got over ten years ago. The Accused also told the Court that he shared a room with a minor child whilst he stayed at the home of MS's mother and stepfather. He said that the child's parents lived in the same yard but they had a one-bedroom house so the female child stayed in the room that he occupied. According to the Accused, her parents trusted him and he had no problems with the child or her parents. 38.1 Good Character The Court has treated him as a man of good character. Firstly, I have used it in assessing the credibility of the Accused's evidence and his denials of the prosecution case. As a person of good character is generally thought to be more trustworthy than other people, I have reminded myself that this has the potential to make me less willing to accept the Prosecution's evidence than if the Accused was not a person of good character. Secondly, I have used the good character of the Accused to his credit in determining the likelihood that the Accused committed the offences charged. This is because I remind myself that it is generally believed that a person of good character is unlikely to commit a criminal offence, so I appreciate that this has thepotential to make me less willing to accept the prosecution's allegation that the Accused committed the offences on the indictment than I would be if he was not a person of good character. 38.2. With this in mind I also appreciate that the good character of the Accused does not mean that I must find him not guilty if I accept that he is a person of good character. Indeed the mere fact that a person is of good character cannot alter proven facts — it can only help me to determine whether or not those facts have been proven. In addition, I have kept in mind the fact that a person who has previously been of good character can commit a crime for the first time. 39. Returning to the evidence, the accused then went on to say that one night MS initiated a conversation about his house. He said that MS asked about the rest of his rest of children who resided abroad. She then told him: “Dad, could you put this property in my name because they are outside?” The Accused told her he could not do that and the house would have to share among his four children. The Accused stated that he went on to explain to her that he could not put it in her name alone because “she have other brothers and sisters.” According to him, she did not like that answer and she got upset and went to her room slamming the door in the process. 40 The next thing that the Accused testified about is the fact that one day he went to the grocery to purcl e something. He testified that Alysia Blackman called him and said: “hr, Patrick, I have been hearing something for the longest while, that you have raped your daughter. I saw her a couple days after and Tasked her why did she do something like that to your father.” ‘According to the Accused, Alysia said that MS told her she doing that because he was not treating her mother right. The Accused said that Alysia asked MS how she could say something like that when the Accused was coming and making groceries, $500 and change in groceries, looking for the biggest ice cream for her. The Accused said that Alysia said that MS told her: “Because he wasn't treating my mother...”. 41 The accused brought a witness called Alysia Burnett who said that she worked at Patience Hill Supermarket. She said that after hearing rumours she had to find out the truth and she asked MS “Did your father really did that to you?” She said MS told her no and she then askedMS “And why are you saying that? That is a serious allegation. You know he could get lock-up for that.” She said MS told her she did not care. He have to pay for how he treat her mother. He was not nice to her mother. Evidence Not In Dispute 42 From the evidence which unfolded in the trial, it is clear that some facts are not in dispute: On other points, I heard different accounts from different witnesses. When there was conflicting evidence on a point, I decided how reliable, honest and accurate e: When doing this I applied the same fair standards to all witnesses, whether they were called for the prosecution or for the defence. I also considered the evidence on each count separately. ch witness was. i, MS lived with her mother in Signal Hill until her mother was hospitalized. ii. MS's mother died on the 24 " January 2016. iii, The Accused moved into the house at Signal Hill and stayed there with MS. iv. The Accused and MS eventually left the home at Signal Hill and went to live at the home of the Accused at Patience Hill in July/August 2016, v. On the morning of the 17 t* October 2016, the Accused dropped MS down the hill to take acar to go to work. vi. There was a shop attendant at Bob's Supermarket. 43 Lalso drew sensible conclusions from the evidence I heard, and I reminded myself not to guess or speculate about anything that was not covered by the evidence. Ad determined whether any points made by the advocates in their closing speeches were persuasive or not and also how important the various pieces of evidence were. For this reason if, when reviewing the evidence, something was not specifically mentioned, it did not mean that this evidence was ignored in arriving at my verdicts in this case. ionally, I Inconsistencies44 In assessing the evidence of the witnesses, I considered whether the witnesses had made previous inconsistent statements, omissions, or contradictions. Regarding any such fencies, I directed myself in the following manner: inconsis I did not find any inconsistency on the part of any witness to be material in this case. (a) I considered whether the particular inconsistency was significant. If it was not significant, I ignored it. (b) If it was significant, I then considered whether I accepted the explanation provided by the witness to explain the inconsistency. If | accepted the explanation, then the inconsistency is unlikely to have affected my view of that witness (as a whole or on that particular point). (c) If I did not accept the explanation, then I went on to consider what effect this had on my view of the reliability of that witness (as a whole or on that particular point). No Sympathy or Prejudice 45 [reminded myself that it was important to bring an open and unbiased mind to the evidence and view it clinically and dispassionately and not let emotion enter into the decision- making process. Both the Prosecution and the Accused are entitled to my verdict free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill-will. I must then deliver my verdict according to the evidence. Burden of Proof 46 The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the Accused at all times. The Accused does not have to prove that he did not commit the offences charged. If the Accused dc have to prove it; it is for the prosecution to disprove it or show that it is irrelevant, otherwise, the prosecution will not have proved its case. The Accused adduced evidence in this case and it \dduce any evidence which is consistent with his innocence, he does not was viewed in this light.Standard of Proof 47 The standard of proof of the Prosecution case is proof beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused cannot be found guilty of the offence, unless the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt on each charge considered separately. Presumption of Innocence 48 The Accused is presumed by law to be innocent of each of the offences unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies me that each and every element of the relevant charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused then loses the presumption of innocence and I must find him guilty. If, however, the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of any or all of the elements of any offence charged then he remains presumed innocent and I must find a verdict of not guilty. 49 If 1am satisfied that there may be an explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused of any charge, or I am unsure of where the truth lies, then I must find the charge has not been proved to the standard of proof required by law and I must find the accused not guilty. 50 I must determine whether each of the witnesses is a reliable witness, that is whether I can rely on the evidence that the witness gives and so find the facts about which the witness has given evidence. I can accept part of a witness's evidence and reject part of that evidence or accept or reject it all. 51 I must determine the facts according to the evidence, considered logically and rationally, without acting capriciously or irrationally but I may use my common sense, experiences and wisdom in assessing the evidence. Potentially Prejudicial Evidence 52During the trial, Defence Counsel asked MS whether the Accused interfered with her sexually, whilst they were living in her deceased stepfather and mother's home. She said yes. She said that while she was sleeping with him one of the nights, the Accused touched her vagina. MS ‘went on to say in answer to another question from Defence Counsel that she would leave the room she usually slept in and go into the room that the Accused occupied with an unidentified minor, as a form of punishment. According to her, the Accused would tell her that she had to. lie down next to him because he thought that she was idling on the electrical devices. This is not relevant to any of the counts before this Court and I have disregarded it entirely. 53. During the trial Defence Counsel in phrasing his questions referred to his client as a beast and a bastard and a crocodile. This characterization was entirely disregarded. 54 During cross-examination, State Counsel asked the Accused if he wanted to play Dr. Who. I have disregarded this characterization. Corroboration 55 Lappreciate that in this case there is no independent support for the evidence of MS. The case for the State stands or falls on the Court's view of the reliability and credibility of MS. With this in mind I have considered that there is no evidential basis for a Makanjuola Warning and I have not directed myself on it. The Ingredients 56 The matters which the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt are that the Accused committed the following offences against MS: 1. One is that there was an Indecent Assault on the 2™! October 2016. ‘This is an assault accompanied by words or circumstances indicating an indecent intention. If it is believed beyond reasonable doubt that on the 2 "4 October 2016, the Accused asked MS to raise her blouse so he could see if she was pregnant, and he then proceeded to feel her breast which made MS feel scared, then the charge of Indecent Assault would be made out on the first, count.2. Two is that there was a buggery on the 2 ™ October 2016. Buggery occurs when there is sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a female person without consent. If it is believed beyond reasonable doubt that on the 2 " October 2016, that the Accused made MS bend over a chair and he inserted his penis into her anus without her consent then the charge of Buggery would be made out. 3. Three is the offence of Rape. This offence is established when there is sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of that person where he knows that the complainant does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether the complainant consents. If it is believed beyond reasonable doubt that on the 2 "4 October 2016, the Accused placed his penis into the vagina in circumstances where it can be inferred that she did not consent then this offence is made out. Similarly, if itis believed beyond reasonable doubt that on the 17‘ October 2016, the Accused placed his penis into MS's vagina and she was screaming and asking him to stop it can be concluded that the Accused knew she was not consenting to sexual intercourse and this count would be made out. 4. Four is the offence of Grievous Sexual Assault. This occurs with the placing of the mouth of the accused onto the vagina of the complainant without consent or in circumstances where the accused was reckless as to consent. If it is believed beyond reasonable doubt that on the 2" October 2016, the Accused placed his mouth on MS's vagina and started to eat her clitoris as she said, in circumstances where it could be inferred that MS did not consent, then this count would be proved. Grievous sexual Assault could also be defined as the penetration of the vagina or anus of the complainant by a body part other than the penis of the Accused. It is also defined as the penetration of the vagina or anus of the complainant by an object manipulated by the Accused. Another permutation occurs where there is the placing of the penis of the Accused into the mouth of the complainant. There is no evidence of this offence occurring on the 17 October 2016. As such Count 5 on the indictment cannot be sustained. Inferences 57 Lreminded myself that in deciding this case, I could draw inferences from the evidence. Where there are two inferences of equal weight, I appreciated that I must make the inference that is favourable to the accused. If, however, the inferences were not of equal weight, then I may draw any reasonable inference on the evidence.Issues 58 The questions to determine in this trial were: 1, Looking at the case for the Accused, did I believe the case for the Accused? 2. Did the case for the case for the Accused cause me to doubt the case for the State? 3. If disregarded the case for the Accused, did I believe the case for the State on all counts to the extent that I was sure of the guilt of the Accused? 59 In this case, the Accused chose to give evidence. He did not have to do that, as an Accused person has the right to remain silent in court. I remind myself that the Prosecution must prove The Accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is not for the Accused to prove his innocence. This has not changed because the Accused chose to give evidence. 60 In choosing to give evidence, the Accused undertook to tell the truth. He also submitted himself to cross-examination. In this respect, I appreciated that the Accused is no different to any other witness. I have accordingly assessed his evidence in the same way as I assessed the evidence of any other witness in this case. 61 Having said as much, | note that there is a clear conflict between the evidence of the State and The Accused. There are four broad conclusions I appreciate I can reach about the Accused's evidence. If think it is true, then I must find him not guilty. If I am not sure whether the evidence of the Accused is true, but think it might be, then I will have a reasonable doubt about the Prosecution’s case, and again, I will find the Accused not guilty. Similarly, if 1 merely prefer the evidence of MS to that of the Accused’s evidence on his ‘Accused not guilty. It is not sufficient for me to merely find the Prosecution case to be preferable to the Defence case. In other words, it is not a question of simply balancing one case against the other. The Prosecution must establish the Accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt ise, I must find the on each count. 62Finally, I understand if I reject the evidence of the Accused, it does not mean I must find him guilty. Instead, if I reject his evidence, I remind myself that I must put it aside and ask whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of the evidence I do accept. Analysis 63 Ihave considered the case for the Accused. I do not believe his case. With respect to hi evidence I reject it outright. With respect to his witness, MS was asked about an attendant at Bob's Supermarket and a conversation she may have had with an attendant at that supermarket. The Accused spoke of getting information from an attendant called Alysia Blackman that the case against him was fabricated by MS. The shop attendant he brought as his witness was from Patience Hill Supermarket and her name was Alysia Burnett. The Defence Statement has this witness listed as one Ms. Keisha. The Court was told by Counsel that the supermarket and the witness are one and the same. The Court accepted t 64 Ihave also considered the fact that the Accused told the Court that he was at home on the 17" October 2016 because it was a Saturday. In fact, it was a week day and it is open to the Court and the Court did in fact, infer that the only reason why the Accused was at home on the morning of the 17 October 2016 to be able to drop MS off to get a taxi to work was because the event happened the way MS testified they did earlier the morning of the 17 ** October 2016. 64.1 Lie In connection with this bit of evidence, I have treated it as a lie told by the Accused. In this case, the Lucas direction was contemplated in relation to this evidence as to the Accused being home on the morning of the 17 '" October 2016 becaus« and he does not work on weekends. I recognise that I may rely on this lie as evidence of guilt in relation to the charges before the Court. I have therefore addressed my mind to the fact that the lie is only evidence of guilt if I am satis reminded myself that people might lie not because they are guilty, but for other reasons (for example, to bolster a weak case, to protect someone, out of panic, or to cover up disgraceful behaviour). Finally, on this issue, I remind myself that this lie alone is insufficient evidence, and I cannot rely solely on the lie but should also look to the other evidence for proof of guilt. ‘cording to him it was the weekend fied the lie was made deliberately. I have also65 I disbelieve the evidence of Alysia Burnett. She stated that she knew the Accused for some six years. She also spoke to being relieved that the burden she was carrying on her shoulders was now lifted by testifying in Court. This burden being so heavy the Court notes that she never reported the information she had in her possession to the police especially when she herself was aware that the Accused could get lock up. The Court disbelieved her evidence and disregarded it. 66 reminded myself of the good character of the Accused and in particular, that his good character may mean that he is less likely to commit these offences. In all the circumstances, I reject the defence of the Accused. 67 I turn now to the case for the State. In so far as MS was concerned I found her to be a credible and reliable witness. If her plan was to fabricate a case against her father to make him, pay for what he did to her mother, it stands to reason that she would have fabricated an airtight case. There was no reason for her to admit to any consensual sex with the Accused. This Court formed the view that the mere fact that she candidly admitted that this happened reinforces her credibility and reliability. 68 After looking at the evidence raised by the Accused, the case for the State is plausible. A lot of the evidence of the Accused focused on the fact that MS was going out sometimes staying out for two to three nights, she would come home late at night, she had boyfriends, and she was always on the phone. These observations and focus of the Accused on the male companions of MS seem to make it all the more realistic that the Accused would have likely been concerned about whether MS was pregnant. 69 MS testified in a straightforward manner. She withstood cross-examination and her evidence was not undermined. At all times she remained forthright to the point of being blunt - even with the Court. It was apparent that she was not there to ingratiate herself with the tribunal of fact and she was being her authentic self. Findings 70 Ihave made the following findings:1. I disbelieve the accused when he stated that MS blamed him for her mother's death 2. I disbelieve the accused when he said that MS told him that he was part of the cause of her mother's death because he was dating another woman who her mother did not approve of. 3. disbelieve the accused when he says that MS went out with some friends and came home at around midnight. 4. [disbelieve the accused when he said that he asked MS “Where did you come from at this hour? Because you tell me you going one place, I pass some place else and see. So tell me what you was doing there.” 5, I disbelieve the accused when he said MS said to him: “Dad, could you put this property in my name because they are outside?” 6. I disbelieved that MS told the Accused that she wanted him to give her his whole house because the rest of his children were in foreign and they were “fixed.” I believe instead that the Accused made that call and told her about the potential inheritance she would have because he knew he had committed all the offences. 7. I disbelieve the Accused when he says that he had a conversation one day at the grocery with one Alysia Blackman the attendant who told him that she had asked MS why she was saying that her father raped her and MS replied that he was not treating her mother right. 8. [disbelieve the accused when he says that there were instances where MS kept coming in late over and over, and when she came home she was always on the phone. g. I disbelieve she told him that she was a “big woman” and she “could do whatever she wants.” 10. I disbelieve the accused told her he “would not stand for that” because he needed his rest and MS got angry. 11. I disbelieve the Accused when he said that the reason why he was home on the 17" October 2016 was because he did not have to work as it was a Saturday. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the 17 "* October 2016 was a Monday. I therefore believeinstead that the only reason why the Accused was home that morning to be able to take MS to work which according to her started at 8 AM, was if he had raped her after midnight into the early hours of the morning. 12. [reject the evidence of Alysia Burnett. 13. I find as a fact that the Accused raped MS on the 2 ™ October 2016 and on the 17 October 2016. 14. I find as a fact that the Accused buggered MS on the 2 "4 October 2016. 15. I find as a fact that the Accused Indecently Assaulted MS on the 2 "' October 2016. 16. I find as a fact that the Accused committed an act of Grievous Sexual Assault on MS on the 2™4 October 2016. Verdict 71 [find the Accused guilty of Count One of Indecent Assault. I find the Accused guilty of Count Two of Buggery. I find the Accused guilty of Count Three of Rape. I find the Accused guilty of Count Four of Grievous Sexual Assault. I find the Accused not guilty of Count Five of Grievous Sexual Assault. I find the Accused guilty of Count Six of Rape. Nalini Singh Judge. SENTENCE The Probation Officer's Report 1 The Court ordered a Probation Officer's report after finding the Prisoner guilty of:From a perusal of the Probation Officer's report, I note that the Court has been provided with data from: i, Count One of Indecent Assault, ii, Count Two of Buggery, Count Three of Rape, iv. Count Four of Grievous Sexual Assault, and vy. Count Six of Rape. a. The Prisoner's great-niece, Amanda Wong. b. The Prisoner's elder brother, Mr. Lybert Patrick. ¢. The Prisoner's younger brother, Mr. St. Rose Patrick. 4d. The Prisoner's eldest brother, Mr. Joseph Patrick. e. The Prisoner's eldest son, Mr. Sheldon Winfield Patrick. f. The Prisoner's daughter, Nekita Ruiz. g. One of the Prisoner's former supervisors, Mr. Trevor Baird. h. Persons in the communities of Signal Hill and Patience Hill. i. The Prisoner's friend, Reginald Adams. j. The Prisoner's Spiritual Leader, Rev. Peter Hackette. k. The Prisoner's younger son, Jayon Grannum Patrick. 1, The Prisoner's niece, Nicole Patrick. m. The Prisoner's sister, Ethel Patrick. n. The Prisoner's niece, Annette Clarke-James. o. The Prisoner's daughter, Stacy Richardson.2 This data source covers persons from various walks of life who have known the Prisoner. ‘They include his family, persons with whom he worked, his friend and his spiritual advisor. I have read their contributions contained in the Probation Officer's Report and I have factored them into my decision on sentence in this matter. The common sentiment throughout is that the Prisoner is a person of good moral character. 3. He was gainfully employed as a Labourer at the Division of Infrastructure, Quarries and Urban Development. The Prisoner also engaged in casual labour (fixing small engine machines such as brush cutters and lawnmowers). So before this incident, there is every indication that the Prisoner a contributing member of society who was gainfully employed. 4. There is also an indication that the Prisoner made his home a “house of refuge for young ‘women who were homeless; many relatives (especially female) resided there and never complained about the Prisoner approaching them inappropriately.” So the Court gathers that the Prisoner devoted himself to activities which benefitted persons in his community. 5 The Court reminds itself in this regard that the Prisoner was previously a man of good character and notes that before this conviction, during his sixty-three years of life, the Prisoner never found himself in any trouble with the law and instead has devoted himself to productive activities and to contributing to the community. I take this into account in my de« sentence. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Re the Offence — Indecent Assault 6 According to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act Chap. 11:28 as amended, a person who indecently assaults another is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years fora first offence. 7 Thave found the following factors to be aggravating factors vis-a-vis the offence: i. The seriousness and prevalence of the offence; ii, The need to protect children from this type of crime;8 Thave found no mitigating factors in relation to this offence. I have therefore arrived at a starting point of 2 years imprisonment in this matter. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors and Mitigating Factors Re the Offender 9. Thave considered the following to be the aggravating factors as they relate to the offender in this case: In light of these aggravating factors in this case I have adjusted upwards to 4 years imprisonment. i. The Prisoner was an adult at the time of the offence and should have appreciated the consequences of his actions. ii, The Prisoner knew the virtual complainant was already seeking counselling because of her mother's death. His actions served to inflict further psychological pain and trauma on the virtual complainant. iii. The prisoner used threats to kill himself to silence the virtual complainant. iv. The Prisoner knew that at the time of the incident, the virtual complainant was a teenager who was depending on him to provide her with a place to live. In fact, that was why she moved in with him after her mother died. He exploited this vulnerability. v. The Prisoner was in a position of trust in relation to MS. Instead of nurturing and continuing to treat the virtual complainant as his child, the Prisoner breached his position of trust. vi. The Prisoner violated the virtual complainant's exual anatomy. vii. The prisoner subjected the virtual complainant to sexual indignit 10 Inow address my mind to the mitigating facts in this case in so far as they relate to the Prisoner:i. The good character of the Prisoner who for sixty-three years was never in trouble with the law. ii. The Prisoner was previously gainfully employed and therefore a contributing member to society. ili, The Prisoner previously assisted members of his community by offering his home as a shelter. iv. The age and health of the Prisoner 11 Ihave reminded myself of the five principal objects of sentencing set out in Benjamin v R: ~The retributive or Genuncialory, which isthe same as the punitive; ~The deterrent vis-A-vis potential offenders; ~The deterrent vis-i-vis the particular offender being sentenced ~The preventative, which aims at preventing the particular offender from again offending by incarcerating him for a long period; and = The rehabilitative, which contemplates the rehabilitation ofthe particular offender so that he might resume his pace asa lawabiding member of society In light of the mitigating factors in this case and reminding myself of the principles of sentencing I adjust downwards to 2 years imprisonment. 12 accordingly sentence the Prisoner to a term of 2 years imprisonment with hard labour on count one of indecent assault. 13. He is to be credited for the 18 days that he has spent in custody awaiting sentence in this matter. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting access to bail in the pre-trial stages of this case. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Re the Offence — Buggery 14 According to section 13(4) of the Sexual Offences Act Chap. 11:28 as amended, a person who commits the offence of buggery is liable on conviction to imprisonment for twenty- five years.15 Thave found the same factors listed at para. 7 above to be aggravating factors vis-d-vis this offence. I have found no mitigating factors in relation to this offence. I have therefore arrived at a starting point of 10 years imprisonment in respect of the offence of buggery. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors and Mitigating Factors Ke the Offender 16 Ihave considered the aggravating factors listed at para. 9 above to be equally relevant in so far as they relate to the offender in respect of the offence of buggery. In light of these aggravating factors, I have adjusted upwards to 12 years imprisonment. I find the mitigating factors in so far as they relate to the Prisoner, which are set out at para. 10 to be equally applicable in respect of the offence of buggery. Reminding myself of the principles of sentencing I adjust downwards to 8 years imprisonment. 17 Laccordingly sentence the Prisoner to a term of 8 years imprisonment with hard labour on count two of buggery. 18 Hes to be credited for the 18 days that he has spent in custody awaiting sentence in this matter. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting access to bail in the pre-trial stages of this case, The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Re the Offence — Rape 19 According to section 4(1) of the Sexual Offences Act Chap. 11:28 as amended, a person who commits the offence of rape is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life. 20 Thave found the same factors listed at para. 7 above to be aggravating factors vis-a-vis this offence. I have found no mitigating factors in relation to this offence. I have therefore arrived at a starting point of 15 years imprisonment in respect of the offence of rape. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors and Mitigating Factors Re the Offender 21Ihave considered the aggravating factors listed at para. 9 above to be equally relevant in so far as they relate to the offender in respect of the offence of rape. In light of these aggravating factors, I have adjusted upwards to 18 years imprisonment I find the mitigating fact as they relate to the Prisoner which are set out at para. 10 to be equally applicable in respect of the offence of rape. Reminding myself of the principles of sentencing I adjust downwards to 10 years imprisonment. in so far 22 Laccordingly sentence the Prisoner to a term of 10 years imprisonment with hard labour on count three of rape. He is to be credited for the 18 days that he has spent in custody awaiting entence in this matter. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting ac in the pre-trial stages of this case. ss to bail 3. Taking into account all the considerations listed at paras. 19~21 above, the prisoner is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years with hard labour on count six of rape. He is to be credited for the 18 days that he has spent in custody awaiting sentence in this matter. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting access to bail in the pre-trial stages of this case. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Re the Offence — Grievous Sexual Assault 24 According to section 4A(4) of the Sexual Offences Act Chap. 11:28 as amended, a person who commits the offence of grievous sexual assault is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life. 25 Ihave found the same factors listed at para. 7 above to be aggravating factors vis-a-vis this offence. Ihave found no mitigating factors in relation to this offence. Ihave therefore arrived at a starting point of 8 years imprisonment in respect of the offence of grievous sexual assault. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors and Mitigating Factors Re the Offender 26Thave considered the aggravating factors listed at para. 9 above to be equally relevant in so far as they relate to the offender in respect of the offence of grievous sexual assault. In light of these aggravating factors, Ihave adjusted upwards to 10 years imprisonment. I find the mitigating facts in so far as they relate to the Prisoner which are set out at para. 10 to be equally applicable in respect of the offence of grievous sexual assault. Reminding myself of the principles of sentencing I adjust downwards to 6 years imprisonment. 27 Laccordingly sentence the Prisoner to a term of 6 years imprisonment with hard labour on count four of grievous sexual assault. He is to be credited for the 18 days that he has spent in custody awaiting sentence in this matter. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting access to bail in the pre-trial stages of this case. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that pursuant to section 49 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 (as amended): IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 50 of the Sexual Offences Act (as amended): The Prisoner is to be credited for the 18 days that he has spent in custody awaiting sentence in this matter in respect of each count. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting access to bail in the pre-trial stages of this case. All sentences will run concurrently. Order of the Court IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED:— 1, On the First Count, Indecent Assault, the said Grannum Patrick should be imprisoned in the State Prison and that He be there kept to serve a term of Two (2) years to be computed from today Tuesday 18 ® April 2023, and that he be there kept to hard labour during the whole of the said term of his imprisonment. 2. On the Second Count, Buggery, the said Grannum Patrick should be imprisoned in the State Prison and that He be there kept to serve a term of Eight (8) years to be computed from today Tuesday 18 ‘* April 2023, and that he be there kept to hard labour during the whole of the said term of his imprisonment.3. On the Third Count, Rape, the said Grannum Patrick should be imprisoned in the State Prison and that He be there kept to serve a term of Ten (10) years to be computed from today Tuesday 18 "* April 2023, and that he be there kept to hard labour during the whole of the said term of his imprisonment. 4. On the Fourth Count, Grievous Sexual Assault, the said Grannum Patrick should be imprisoned in the State Prison and that He be there kept to serve a term of Six (6) years to be computed from today Tuesday 18 * April 2023, and that he be there kept to hard labour during the whole of the said term of his imprisonment. 5. On the Sixth Count, Rape, the said Grannum Patrick should be imprisoned in the State Prison and that He be there kept to serve a term of Ten (10) years to be computed from today Tuesday 18 ® April 2023, and that he be there kept to hard labour during the whole of the said term of his imprisonment. 6. The Prisoner is to be credited for the 18 days which he has spent in custody awaiting sentence in this matter in respect of each count. He is also to be credited for the 3 days he spent awaiting access to bail in the pre-trial stages of this case. 7-All sentences will run concurrently. 1. The Prisoner, Grannum Patrick, shall report to the Scarborough Police Station within seven calendar days of his discharge from prison for the purpose of registration as a sex offender on the National Sex Offender Register. 2. The Prisoner shall thereafter report as a sex offender for a period of Five (5) years at a frequency of Six (6) times per year, which is, once every two (2) months commencing on the date of registration at the said Police Station. 1. The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall forward the name and particulars of the sex offender to the Commissioner of Police. 2. The Commissioner of Police shall publish the relevant information pertaining to the section 4 and section 4A convictions within fourteen (14) days of this Order on the Public Sex Offender Website. 3. The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the Commissioner of Police.Nalini Singh Judge. Count Number One-Indecent Assault ‘Two-Buggery Three-Rape Six-Rape Four-Grievous Sexual Assault Sentence 2 Years with Hard Labour 8 Years with Hard Labour 10 Years with Hard Labour 10 Years with Hard Labour 6 Years with Hard labour