CCJ Gone Rapingly Mad – Buggery In Disguise

2

                                                          by RAWLSTON POMPEY

Be it in the ‘OECS’ or CARICOM,’ none may impute ulterior motive for adverse decisions delivered by the well-learned and esteemed Justices of regional ‘Appellate Jurisdictions.’ None may also question their independence, impartiality and professional integrity. In their judicial capacity, collectively, many have delivered ‘Decisions’ that have not only caused conscientious ‘Judicial Officers’ to dissent, but also to provoke public consternation. Thus, when their ‘reasoning and rationality’ come under public scrutiny, then ‘Justices’ shall know they run the risk in causing regional people to perceive ‘Judicial Institutions’ and ‘Appellate Bodies’ of being in want of integrity.

ATTACKED AND RAVISHED

In spite of ‘Early Childhood Teachings,’ though not necessarily supportive of certain sexual acts, enactments have allowed for ‘Judicial Interpretations’ by adjudicators that may opined that non-consensual ‘Anus’ sexual intercourse, is both ‘Rape’ (per vaginam) and Buggery’ (per anus).  Given these facts, none may deny that there are those that believe the ‘Anuses of men and women, and boys and girls,’ shall be put to use for sexual gratification. Not infrequently, the vulnerable are sexually exploited, while the unsuspecting, are viciously ‘Attacked and Ravished.’ Nations not only owe to victims, safety and security, but also protection of law.

PERSPECTIVE

Given such view, it would seem that half the judicial problems facing modern society, appear to have been the irrational and objectionable way, some interpretations have been made, and decisions that had given people reasons to express public dissent. This commentary looks at a recent reported ruling delivered by a clearly misdirected or misguided ‘Judges’ sitting on the ‘Trinidad and Tobago-based ‘Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).’ It also looks at the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ as it relates to the offences ‘Rape and Buggery’ [Antigua & Barbuda: No. 9 of 1995: and Barbados: Chapter 154].

MALE RAPE -JUDICIAL HISTORY

The ‘Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ),’ the ‘Apex Court’ for the republics of: (i) ‘…Barbados: (ii) …Belize: (iii) …Commonwealth of Dominica: and (iv) …Guyana,’ looked at abuses to the ‘Anuses’ of males and females’ and recently ruled that ‘Criminal law enforcers may charge a male person with raping another male person.’ The very charge of ‘Rape,’ has been the creation of ‘Judicial History.’ This had occurred, when apparently provisions contained in the ‘Sexual Offences Act (SOA)’ [Republic of Barbados] may have been overlooked or ignored.

ACCUSED – STEPHEN ALLEYNE

When a Barbadian ‘Commissioner of Police,’ seemingly belatedly, decided to test its legality, ‘Stephen Alleyne’ appeared to have been its first accused to be prosecuted. The consciousness of the region’s people was aroused, discussions were generated and wide media coverage was given to this development, particularly in the region’s newspapers and news portals, and in others beyond these borders. However, it was not until the ‘7-panel Judges on the ‘CCJ,’ delivered the ‘November 2021 Judgement’ that the region seemed to have become of the ‘Appellate Decision’ that many people became aware [February 1, 2022].’

NO CONCERNS

That which shall now be given clearly to understand, is that ‘Appellate Courts’ do not conduct ‘Criminal Trials,’ nor hold ‘Committal Proceedings.’ Invariably, they are called upon to visit suspect decisions delivered by inferior Courts. This is particularly the case when it has been perceived to border ‘Travesties or Miscarriages of Justice.’ In the instant ‘Stephen Alleyne Rape Case,’ that which the respected ‘Justice Peter Jamadar’ referred, appeared not to have been the concerns or issue of the ‘Commissioner of Police.’ The issue, therefore, had no direct bearing on the definition of ‘Rape’ as contained in the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ [Barbados].

EFFEMINATE MALES

With clarity of purpose and for commonality of understanding, Parliament provided the ‘Definition for Buggery.’ It states ‘…In this Section buggery means sexual intercourse ‘Per Anum’ by a male person with a male person, or by a male person upon a female person’ [SOA: Section 12 (1) & (2): A&B]. Given such ‘Definition,’ men and women of superior intellect shall not be confused with that which is universally known as ‘RAPE.’ Even so, trending in some societies, the ‘Effeminate Males’ consider such part of the human anatomy to be a ‘Vagina’ Those so ‘sexually-preference,’ were said to have found male insertions, pleasurably gratifying.

LEGAL FICTION

Given the statutory definition, such may have been called a ‘Legal Fiction.’ When the accused’s ‘Penis’ penetrated, with deliberateness the ‘Anus’ of the aggrieved male person, he had not only committed ‘an abominable Sin,’ but also; (i) ‘…A prosecutable; and (ii) …Punishable sexual criminal act of ‘Rape.’ Given the serious nature of the allegation and particularly the charge of ‘Rape,’ interpretative confusion appeared to have rattled the ‘Magistracy.’ Such may also have affected the esteemed Judges on the ‘Barbados Court of Appeal.’ In its ‘Appellate Jurisdiction,’ and seemingly with harbored doubtfulness, one of the distinguished ‘CCJ Appellate Justices’ [His Honour, Justice Andrew Burgess], saw the overwhelming majority prevailed with their conclusions. They succeeded on a statutory-provided ‘Legal Fiction.’

EIGHTEEN- SIX (18 (6)

This vividly reminds of the controversial and ‘Fictionalized Definition’ of ‘Spouse.’ Instructively, Parliamentarians, ignorant of the term ‘Legal Fiction,’ appeared to have been caught off-guard. Parliamentary history recorded the offending insertion was ‘Section 18 (6),’ nationally popularized ‘18 (6)’ [Antigua & Barbuda]. Though not necessarily for the reasons then perceived by the citizenry, the law considers two persons of the ‘Same Sex,’ and living together in the same household, ‘Spouses to each other.’ Chuckles and choking laughter rippled through the ‘Legislative Chambers,’ thereby bringing the parliamentary proceedings to a temporary, but rowdy and noisy halt. Incidentally, Prime Minister Keith Rowley’ was not in the ‘Public Gallery.’

CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION

From time immemorial, conventionally, universally, the judicially-accepted definition of ‘RAPE,’ has been known to ‘Judges and Judicial Institutions’ as; ‘…A male person commits the offence of ‘RAPE’ when he has sexual intercourse with a female person who is not his wife, either; (i) ‘…Without her consent, with recklessness; or (ii) …With consent, but; (a) ‘…Extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm; (b) …Impersonation (husband/fiancé): (c) or …False and fraudulent representations. Statutorily, the penalty is ‘Life Imprisonment’ [A&B: SOA: No. 9 of 1995: Section 3 (1): Sub-section (2)].  

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Given this definition, and in spite of that contained in the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ as ‘Rape’ [Republic of Barbados], likened to (i) ‘…The Committal Magistrate: (ii) …The three-panel Judges on the Barbados Court of Appeal: and (iii) …Apex Appellate Court Judge, Justice Andrew Burgess,’ the ‘Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)’ may have taken ‘Judicial Notice,’ thereby making clear distinction that: (a) ‘…Penile vaginal penetration,’ constitutes ‘Rape:’ and (b) …Penis in Anus’ constitutes that of ‘Buggery.’ This may have caused the ‘Appellate Justices’ that they were neither conceived, nor were given birth through the ’Anus.’ Taking such ‘Notice’ has been a well-considered and accepted ‘British Commonwealth Judicial Principle.

CASES ON POINT

As far as has been known, every jurisdiction within this organization, practices such principle. Thus, ‘Rape’ was well-known as a male ‘Ravishing a Female’s Vagina.’ Evidentially, among the elements to prove is the non-consensual insertion of the male penis into the vagina of a female.’ Research has shown several ‘Cases on Point;’ (i) ‘…Where a woman was ravished whilst in a state of complete intoxication, it was held to be rape’ [1845: R v Camplin]. (ii) …It was held to be rape, ravishing a woman whilst she is asleep’ [1872: R v Mayers: 12 Cox: CC: 311]. That which invariably surfaced are accusations made against some professionals. This Case makes perfect reference; (iii) ‘…The girl submitted to sexual intercourse under the belief that the accused was treating her medically and performing a surgical procedure.’ The Court held that ‘Consent’ obtained by fraud, is no defence’ [1877: R v Flattery: 2 QBD: 410]: (iv) …The widely reported Case of comedian ‘Bill Cosby,’ also makes the point. However, likened to fate, as fortune sometimes has it, his conviction was overturned [NBC: June, 30, 2021];

CITIES OF BUGGERY

Biblically, this had been the order of the day in the ancient cities of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah.’ Christians are edified that the rampancy of such behavior saw ‘God’s Destructive Wrath’ descended upon the ‘Cities of Buggery’ [Genesis: 19-24].   Thus, as progressive and revolutionize as some may wish society to be, ‘Judicial officers’ shall know that the criminal act of ‘Rape’ can only be committed by a male person using the reproductive organ in a non-consenting female by inserting his ‘Penis’ into the ‘Vagina.’ The ‘CCJ’s Appellate Court’ ruling, has now provoked the thought-provoking question; ‘…What male/female Law enforcer, Magistrate, Judge; Juror, practicing attorney, their grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters, wives, daughters, nieces and sons shall consider their Anuses as Vaginas?’

EFFEMINATE MALES

Conscious of biblical teachings, Legislators in many nations, including ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ and the new ‘Republic of Barbados,’ have enacted laws that are criminally prohibitive of acts of ‘Rape and Buggery.’ Today, ‘Judicial officers’ of superior intellect, and interpreting these laws, appear to have found themselves in ‘Mixed-up Moods.’ Even with the statutory provision, moralists have considered it illogical and nonsensical as today, ‘Buggery’ has been established by law as ‘Rape of the Anus.’ Likened to this commentary, there might very well be something in the ‘Holy Scriptures’ worthwhile reading [Leviticus: 20: 13].

DECISIONALL/PROSECUTORALLY OPTIONAL

Guided by provisions contained in the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ [Barbados], the ‘Appellant Commissioner of Police’ held firmly, the view that even as the ‘Act’ provides for the offences of: (a) ‘…Rape; and (b) …Buggery,’ the Sections were ‘Decisionally and Prosecutorally Optional.’ This the august ‘CCJ Appellate Body’ that visited upon the ‘Magisterial Decision,’ so determined. In its interpretative exercise as to whether or not a ‘Male person accused of sodomizing the ‘Anus’ of another male person’ can be charged with the offence of ‘Rape.’ Incidentally, the ‘Sexual Offences Act,’ so provides [Chapter 154: Section 3 (1)].

RAVISISHING THE ANUS

That which seemed to have given the ‘Committal Magistrate’ and the ‘3-panel Justices’ on the ‘Barbados Court of Appeal’ ‘Interpretative Jitters,’ has been the ‘Penis of Stephen Alleyne.’ Accused of sexually ‘Ravishing the Anus’ of another male, he was arrested and charged with ‘Rape. ‘The esteemed ‘Justice Andrew Burgess’ knew that has to be the involvement of ‘Penis and Vagina.’ He knew that the sexual act that constitutes the offence ‘Buggery,’ no matter how fictionized or sensationalized, it shall never be called ‘Rape.’

RAPING MAD

While the ‘Appellate Court’ [CCJ], may have been seen as having ‘Gone Raping Mad,’ the ‘Actual Culprits’ have been the ‘Legislative arm of Government.’ The ‘Rape and Buggery’ offences contained in the enactment not only appear ‘Bad for Duplicity,’ but also has potential for ‘Interpretative Stupidity.’ When male accused ‘Stephen Alleyne’ seemed to have escaped the appropriate charge of ‘Buggery of another male, he was instead slapped with ‘Rape.’ Neither the ‘Committal Magistrate,’ nor the ‘Barbados Court of Appeal’ appeared to have been amused. Thus, confusion reigned over the instituted ‘Rape Charge.’

MINDBOGGLING MODE

To, all intents and purposes, the legislators, in ‘Mindboggling Mode,’ seem to have misinformed themselves with an apparent ill-conceived definition of ‘Rape.’ They have decided that this offence is committed when; ‘…The penis of a person is inserted into the ‘ANUS or MOUTH’ of another person.’ In most jurisdictions this constitutes ‘Rape.’ Since females were not biologically equipped with such organ, this could only be performed on both males and females by a male person. Instructively, the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ [Barbados] provides that a male person having non-consensual ‘Anal sexual intercourse’ (per anus), with another male, constitutes the offence – ‘RAPE’ [Barbados: SOA: Chapter 154: Sections 3 (1) & (6)].

FEMALE RAPE CLAUSE

Then ensuring that those not born with penises, they inserted a ‘Female Rape Clause.’ This ‘Clause’ speaks to the inclusion of; ‘…An object, not being part of the human body, manipulated by a person into the vagina or anus of another person’ [SOA: Chapter 154: Sections 3 (1) & (6)].’ Consequent upon this provision, obtained u ‘Barbadian Law,’ popular radio ‘Talk Show’ caller [Browne& Browne], ‘Dame Sherese’ may further feel emboldened by that which is contained in that nation’s ‘Sexual Offences Act.’ Thus, he shall be informed that no ‘Male or Female or ‘Shemale’ shall insert any ‘organ or hand-held or strap-on objects’ in an orifice on his person without consent.

MISCHIEF AIM BY PARLIAMENT

Through the years the ‘Judiciary’ has been functioning in the way ‘Judges’ has seen necessary, if only to sustain the ‘Rule of Law.’ There are those ‘Judicial Officers’ that have often been perceived by regional people as displaying ambivalence and scant regard to ‘Public Morality.’ Their interpretation of the laws often indicates how regional jurisprudence has been evolving. From this perspective, there may be no need to question their judicial competence. Moreover, they shall know that their interpretative skills are key to discerning the ‘Mischief Aim by Parliament.’

FICTIONALIZED DEFINITION

Resolute and harboring, subscribing and sharing no such view, and seemingly strengthened by his ‘Intellect and Moral Integrity,’ the ‘Dissenting Justice,’ reportedly divorced himself from any association and/or concurrence with the outrageous, yet statutorily ‘Fictionized Definition’ of ‘Buggery.’ The manner in which the law was interpreted by ‘6’ of the ‘7-panel Justices’ and ruled, seemed more to have positioned to be referred to as ‘Judicial Renegades.’ Fully satisfied and reliant upon his mental faculties to guide his thoughts way from drawing interpretative inferences.

MISCHIEF AIM BY PARLIAMENT

Within this jurisdiction, Legislators appeared cautiously careful, not to have tinkered with the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ [Antigua & Barbuda]. Consternation invariably fills the mind, and some ‘Judicial Decisions’ often deepens rift within the society, while ‘Interpretative Confusion’ often bedeviled the ‘Magistracy and Judiciary.’ Invariably, referrals are made to ‘Appellate and Apex Courts’ for interpretative clarity on issues of law, particularly to ascertain the ‘Mischief Aimed by Parliament.’ Theirs has always been the difficult task in interpreting enactments considered appropriate for ‘social control,’ curb societal lawlessness and behaviors that seem reek of recklessness. Yet there are those that frequently smart under ‘Human Rights and International Treaties, Conventions and Commitments,’ while critical issues are side-stepped.

RULE OF LAW

The trouble that some Respondents often experience has been accessing ‘Appellate Bodies,’ that speak their language, understand societal culture and prohibitiveness of laws for social control and ultimately, the ‘Rule of Law.’ Those familiar with Law enforcement, criminal law and ‘Criminal Justice System,’ and those administrating and dispensing justice, shall be considered reckless no to know that interpretation of any law, shall first ascertain the ‘Parliamentary Mischief.’ This undoubtedly, shall help to guide clarity of understanding and informed ‘Appellate Decisions’ before saying ‘I Concur.’

I CONCUR

Seemingly, half the trouble within the ‘Judiciary’ today, is the assignment of ‘Judges’ that often appear starved for commonality of understanding of society’s core values. Thus, for numerical value, many seemed resigned to their role of saying, ‘I Concur.’ The situation is further compounded, when regional legislators ‘Tinker with Legislation,’ be it from a ‘Realistic Perspective’ or Legalistic Fictions.’ This may have been the case of a male accused that allegedly ‘Sodomized or Buggerized’ another male. Research has revealed that when ‘Barbadian Legislators’ enacted the ‘Sexual Offences Act,’ the enactment correctly sectionized ‘Rape and Buggery.’ As a ‘Statutory Enactment,’ it is ‘Legally Right’ to define an act of ‘Buggery’ as ‘Rape’ [Barbados]. From society’s standpoint, it has been seen as ‘Morally Wrong.’

CONTRASTING/CONCURRING VIEW

When in criminal proceedings adjudicators begin to raise concerns for; (a) ‘…Human Rights; and (b) …States International Treaty Commitments,’ there is every likelihood that the issues under judicial consideration might be side-stepped. In the ‘Judgment Summary’ [‘Caribbean Court of Justice],’ these were observed; ‘…When Judges are interpreting legislation, they must also respect the fundamental rights in the Constitution and consider a ‘States International Treaty Commitments; …A gender-neutral interpretation of the Act respects the right to protection of law, regardless of sex and prohibition of discriminatory laws under the Constitution’ [His Honour, Justice Peter Jamadar].

DISMISSED RAPE COMPLAINT

Prosecutorally, the Police Court Prosecutor’ reportedly insisted in craving the Court’s indulgence to proceed with the proceedings.’ But an equally intolerant ‘Magistrate’ decidedly dismissed the ‘Rape Complaint.’ The dismissal saw the referral to the ‘Barbados Court of Appeal.’ The apparent startled Justices caused it to suffer similar fate. The nation’s ‘Apex Court- Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) then visited upon the ‘Decisions’ of the inferior Courts. The ruling, seemingly mindboggling, yet appeared not to have befuddled the minds of a; (i) ‘…The Respondent and his attorney: (ii) …The Committal Magistrate; and (iii) …The 3-panel Judge on the ‘Barbados Appeals Court.

SEPARATE JUDGMENT

Ironically, unfazed by fellow-Appellate Justices, one Judge on the ‘Apex Court,’ demonstrated that he was of sound memory and discretion and endowed with reason and conscience, appeared not to have been amused. Expressing no qualms about the uses ‘God’ intended of the non-organ orifices on his body, in a ‘Separate Judgment’ and in unambiguous language, ‘His Honour Justice Andrew Burgess’ gave clear indications that he had no intention to go to hell. He did not see that a male person inserting the penis into the ‘Anus or Mouth’ of another male person constitutes ‘Rape.’

HIGH MORAL GROUND

Harboring no such thoughts, expressing, subscribing, and concurring with no such view, he took the ‘High Moral Ground.’ Likened to attorneys for the ‘Respondent Stephen Alleyne,’ though in futility, he fought a ‘Persuasive Battle.’ Even the lone female Judge, ‘Madame Justice Maureen Rajnauth,’ ‘Concurred’ that a male committing such sexual act as ‘Buggery,’ constitutes ‘Rape.’ Standing on the side of ‘Morality,’ the learned Justice respectfully dissented.  With retention of ‘Rape and Buggery’ [Barbados], there seems to exist an anomaly. Should a male’s penis be non-consensually inserted into a female’s; (a) ‘…Vagina; and (b) …Anus,’ it begs the fundamental question, ‘Which of the offences will be applicable?’

RAVISHING INSTINCT

When the ‘Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)’ ruled that a male person can be ‘Charged with Rape’ by having ‘Anal Intercourse’ with another male person, the ‘Monkeys’ at the ‘Wildlife Reserve’ [Farley Hill National Park: Barbados], may have been jumping from tree to tree and gaveling their ‘bahind’ with their paws. They may also have been happy that the ‘CCJ’s Ruling’ also offered them protection from the ‘Ravishing Instinct’ of their own species

RAPING THE ANUS

Inferentially, controversially, yet judicially, there are those ‘Judges’ who believe that the ‘Anus’ might be used for sexual pleasures. Such, however, is contingent only upon consent. This might be seen in a recent ‘Appellate Decision,’ delivered on a jurisdictional issue, pertinent to the abominable crime of ‘Buggery,’ that at least for one jurisdiction, been judicially considered ‘Rape.’ Conversely, the same ‘Judges’ may rule that a male can be charged with ‘Raping the Anus,’ particularly where no consent was sought and obtained. Even so, such shall never be made without reference to the existence of related law [Barbados: CCJ: No. 2 of 2022: (AJ) BB].

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

Unlike the recent thought-provoking ruling of the ‘CCJ,’ at ‘Common Law,’ Rape’ has been defined as; ‘…The unlawful sexual intercourse with a female of any age without her consent and against her will, by force or putting in fear or fraud [Baker & Wilkie’s: Criminal Law: Police Promotion Handbooks: Page 99]. No Judge, however, intelligent or daft, may deny that which is contained in this definition. Those elevated from the ‘Magistracy’ know that these are not only the elements necessary in establishing a ‘Prima Facie Case,’ but also in a criminal trial, critical to the ‘Prospect of Conviction.’ Law enforcement instructional training and teaching, investigative practice, have always guided the martialing of ‘Criminal Evidence.

RUDE AWAKENING

The Magistrate, seemingly unfamiliar with the definition contained in the ‘Sexual Offences Act,’ reportedly dismissed the ‘Complaint Without Oath.’ Then upon appellate proceedings the ‘3-member Barbados Court of Appeal’ upheld the ‘Magisterial Decision.’ Then upon further appellate proceedings, the ‘Barbados Court of Appeal’ was given a ‘Rude Awakening’ by the ‘7-panel Justices of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).’ They have not only disagreed with the decision of the Magistrate, but also ordered re-filing of the ‘Criminal Complaint and ‘Committal Proceedings.’

BUGGERY AND PENALTIES

Within the ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ jurisdiction, Legislators appeared more sober-minded. In making a distinction with ‘Normal and Abnormal Sexual Acts,’ they inserted a Clause that addresses the prohibited sex act of ‘Buggery.’ The statutory enactment defines it as; ‘…A person who commits buggery is guilty of an offence, and is liable on conviction to ‘Life Imprisonment.’ The Legislators had given serious considerations; (a) ‘…Should buggery be committed upon a minor by an adult; (b) …If committed by an adult upon another adult, ‘Imprisonment of fifteen years; and (c) …If committed by a minor, ‘Imprisonment of five years’ [SOA: No. 9 of 1995: Section 12].

INFERENCE OR INTERPRETATION

Among those of ‘Judicial Eminence,’ ‘Justice Burgess’ showed an ability to distinguish a ‘Vagina’ from ‘an Anus.’ Recognizing that the ‘Penis and Vagina’ were not only to complement each other in multiplying and replenishing the earth, but also the only two reproductive organs known to humans. Instructively, he conscientiously decided ‘Not to Concur’ with Justices who believed that when a penis was sexually inserted into the rectum, it was to be considered a ‘Vagina.’

PENILE-VAGINAL PENETRATION

Adamant that under ‘Common Law’ and regional adaptation of ‘British Jurisprudence,’ he insisted that ‘…Only a male person could commit rape.’ Firm in his views, conviction and belief, he dictaed that such sexual act could only be perpetrated ‘against a female’ by the unlawful insertion of a ‘Male’s Penis’ into a ‘Female’s Vagina.’  His Lordship was not alone. This had been the ‘Magisterial View,’ as well as the ‘Non-Legal Fiction View’ of the distinguished ‘3-Judge panel of Justices’ sitting on the ‘Barbados Court of Appeal.’ Reasonable inferences might still be drawn that his secular teachings and commonality of understanding of the average citizens, the core values of the ‘Barbadian Society,’ appeared to have caused him to stand firmly in his knowledge and belief that to constitute the criminal offence of ‘RAPE,’ there ‘SHALL’ be ‘Penile-Vaginal Penetration’ [St. Vincent Times: February 1, 2022].

CREATURE OF STATUTE

The ‘Judiciary’ is not alone with ‘I Concur.’ Respecting tabled Bills, it has often been seen that inadequacy of familiarization of the contents and objects of particular ‘Bills,’ that seen as rushed through, and passed within the ‘Legislative Chambers,’ in rather indecent haste. consternation. Few Legislators seemed to have been adequately prepared for the debate. Few knew when the Bills have contents that might be easily discerned as ‘Legally Right’ or ‘Morally Wrong.’ However, when the parliamentary debate is over, and the Bills put to the House/Senate for the vote, overwhelmingly, the Speaker/President’ declares, ‘The Ayes have it.’ In democracies where there is no ‘Parliamentary Opposition,’ even by a ‘Quorum,’ legislative approval has always been a foregone conclusion.

PARLIAMENTARY AND ASSENTING SCRUTINY

It is instructive to note that both the ‘Legislative body (Parliament) and ‘Assenting authority’ (Governor General) will have seen the sexual criminal offence- ‘Rape,’ being defined in the ambiguous way it may have been drafted. And while those that give ‘Royal Assent’ shall be meticulous in their scrutiny, more than half the time, they observe nothing. Most have not the slightest clue of that which they have signed into law. The ‘Sexual Offences Act] [Barbados: Chapter 154], may just have been one such piece of legislation that may not have given sufficient ‘Parliamentary and Assenting Scrutiny.’ They may have observed that a ‘Male Penis’ inserted into the waste discharge canal, for sexual pleasures, could never be called ‘Rape.’

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the statutory definition of ‘Rape’ as contained in the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ [Barbados]. The eminent ‘7-panel of Judges on the ‘Trinidad and Tobago-headquartered ‘Appellate Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ),’ comprises; (i) ‘…Honourable Justice Adrian Saunders, President: (ii) …Justice Jacob Wit: (iii) …Madame Justice Maureen Rajnauth: (iv) Justice Winston Anderson: (v) …Justice Denys Barrow (author): (vi) …Justice Andrew Burgess; and (vii) …Justice Peter Ramadar.’ When the ‘Legal, Judicial and Appellate’ history is written, posterity will learn of ‘Justice Andrew Burgess.’ He appeared to have used his wit, judicial wisdom and comparability of superior intellect in guiding his deliberations, conclusions and decisions. With independence of mind, yet in a collective approach, though ‘Numerically Defeated,’ by clear that which may have persuasive and compelling, yet differing views and opinions of fellow-Appellate Judges, he remains undaunted, yet with a firm resolve and conviction in serving humanity in the best way, he can. ***

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

2 COMMENTS

  1. This problem is not just within the Caribbean region, it has gone global. It appears that both the legislative and judicial branches of government have collectively lost their way. Whether this is due to poor education (woke colleges), willful corruption (bought off/blackmailed) or spiritual and moral bankruptcy (plain old evil), it doesn’t matter…. This nonsense must stop immediately! The people responsible must be held accountable for their maleficence in office.

    • If maleficence isn’t the proper term but the harm still remains, then the people still need a remedy to this injustice.

      Malfeasance in office contrasts with “misfeasance in office”, which is the commission of a lawful act, done in an official capacity, that improperly causes harm; and “nonfeasance in office,” which is the failure to perform an official duty.

Comments are closed.