After choosing trial by judge alone, a local man was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for rape of a girl of lower primary-school age.

Justice Roy Jones found that the man had raped the child on two occasions and committed an indecent assault against her on two others. He imposed separate sentences but made then run concurrently.

The judge rejected the man’s claim that there was a conspiracy to make up allegations against him so that his wife would have a reason to leave him.

The judge reminded himself that the man did not have to prove his innocence – the Prosecution, conducted by Crown Counsel John Masters, had to prove his guilt.

Because of the girl’s age, she was not required to give evidence under oath. Instead, the judge asked her questions and determined that she was intelligent and understood the need to speak the truth.

In summing up the evidence, Justice Jones pointed out that the girl had been subjected to rigorous cross-examination by Defence Attorney Nicholas Dixey, but she remained credible. Her evidence had the ring of truth, he said.

The girl was not related to the man, but was related to his wife. He had children and she went to his house.

The offences occurred over a two-month period. The girl said the man would tell her to go into another room. Using childish words, she said he would put his penis into her behind. When she cried, he said he would beat her if she told anyone.

The Penal Code defines rape as sexual intercourse, either vaginal or anal, with another person who does not consent. But consent is not a factor when the victim is younger than 16.

Justice Jones reminded himself that the Evidence Law no longer requires corroboration of a child’s evidence. In some cases, however, when a judge is sitting as judge and jury, it would be wise to look for corroborating material.

In this case, the domestic helper gave evidence of her observations. She said the man would be in a room with the girl with the door locked. On one occasion she saw the girl crying, on the floor with her school book, and wanting to go home. The helper said the man started to curse her.

On another occasion the man and girl were in the bathroom for a half hour and when she came out her eyes were puffy.

The judge found that the man did rape and indecently assault the girl, under the guide of assisting her with homework and bathing her.

The maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment.

Mr. Dixey conceded that the starting point for rape sentences is 10 to 12 years and asked the court to consider the absence of numerous aggravating features.  He said it was not a campaign of rape over months or years and there was no evidence of physical injury.

“This is a tragedy,” Mr. Dixey agreed. “The court has decided it is a tragedy of his own making.” He said the defendant would carry the stigma of these convictions for the rest of his life.

 Justice Jones referred to the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal recent judgment concerning aggravating factors in rape case (Caymanian Compass, 30 December 2009).

He cited the age of the girl, the fact that she was vulnerable, and the fact that the man made her a “double victim” because she had to relive the incidents again in telling the court about them.

The judge said he had to pass a sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the offences, express society’s abhorrence and protect the public.

But, he added, “The court should not deprive you of all hope. I believe you can still make a contribution to society on your release.”