Judge Directs Not Guilty Verdict in Sexual Offence Case Over Lack of Proof of Mental Impairme

3

A High Court judge has directed a not guilty verdict for a man accused of having sex with an intellectually disabled woman, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove she met the legal definition of “mentally subnormal.”

Justice Rajiv Persaud upheld a no-case submission by defense attorney Sherfield Bowen, finding that the Crown did not present qualified expert evidence to establish the statutory threshold of significant intellectual and social impairment.

Although the complainant’s mother described developmental delays and an educational assessment specialist testified that cognitive testing placed the woman’s abilities at the level of a four- or five-year-old, the judge noted the witness was not a psychologist and could not make a clinical diagnosis.

Justice Persaud ruled that the issue required expert testimony and could not properly be left to a jury without it. He directed a not guilty verdict. Prosecutors have indicated they intend to appeal.

The case stemmed from an alleged 2022 incident involving a man who had been a frequent visitor to the complainant’s home.

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]

3 COMMENTS

  1. It would be a waste of time and resources to appeal. Only an expert in the field testimony should be relied upon by a jury and judge to reasonably conclude severe mental incapacity or I would say substantial evidence of mental incapacity (without an expert) may be considered but it must require clear and convincing evidence, some tremendously high standard, if expert testimony were not presented. I would say evidence of a pattern of conduct that could make a person reasonably conclude mental incapacity, and evidence the defendant knew of these conduct to reasonably conclude the complainant is likely incapacitated to give consent.

    But without expert testimony more than substantial evidence of this must be presented to a jury or judge, with the judge having the authority to determine the extremely high standard was met for the jury to conclude.

    This is my argument in this matter. It must be high to encourage expert testimony where possible.

  3. WHAT THE HELL…! …THE LAW: …SHEER PROSECUTORIAL INCOMPETENCE
    ***
    SECTION OF LAW

    The ‘…SECTION OF LAW:’ states

    (a) ‘…WHERE A PERSON: under

    (b) …CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DO NOT AMOUNT TO ‘RAPE: has

    (c) …SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH ANOTHER WHO: is

    (d) …MENTALLY SUBNORMAL AND WHO: is

    (e) …NOT THE PERSON’S SPOUSE: that

    (f) …PERSON IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE: and
    (g) …LIABLE ON CONVICTION: to

    (h) …IMPRISONMENT FOR 15-YEARS’ [AB: Sexual Offences Act: Section 11: No.9 of 1995].

    ***
    LEGAL INTERPRETATION: …MENTALLY SUBNORMAL

    ‘…In this Section : MENTALLY SUBNORMAL:’ means ‘…A PERSON’S STATE: of

    (i) ‘…ARRESTED: or

    (ii) …INCOMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF MIND: including

    (iii) …SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT OF INTELLIGENCE:
    (iv) …SOCIAL FUNCTIONING: and

    (v) …IS IRRESPONSIBLE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PERSON CONCERNED.’

    ***

    AUTHORITY OF DPP

    Instructively, the ‘Law’ clearly states:

    ‘…No proceedings for an offence under this ‘Section-11’ shall be instituted: except

    (a) ‘…BY THE DPP: or

    (b) …WITH HIS CONSENT: and

    (c) …WHO SHALL HAVE REGARD: as to

    (d) …WHETHER OR NOT AN ABUSE: in

    (e) …RELATION TO THE ‘…MENTALLY SUBNORMAL PERSON,’ HAS BEEN COMMITTED.’

    ***
    THE PROSECUTION SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.’

    ***
    WHAT THE HELL…!

    ***

    DPP MAY WISH TO FOLLOW THIS ‘…ENGLISH CASE LAW:

    ‘…R v CARTER-BRIANT {1943].

    ***

Comments are closed.