Jury hung 9 to 3 in buggery case


Jurors acquitted a man on charges of demanding with menaces and serious indecency on Thursday but could not decide on a verdict for buggery.

A woman told the court her boyfriend forced her to have oral and anal sex with him at the end of a rocky relationship in September 2014.

She said the man also forced her to give him close to $4000, which she had saved on two bank accounts.

However, after deliberating for hours, the jurors sided with the defendant, who testified that the oral sex was consensual, and the woman also consented to give him the money from her accounts.

According to his testimony, he and woman had been saving the money with plans to repair his house and buy a vehicle for her.

He said since she was intent on leaving him, he told her to return his share of the money.

On the day of the alleged offences, the couple had been arguing after accusing each other of infidelity.

The defendant testified they ended up having sex, which, according to him, was the way they resolved many arguments throughout their eight-year-long relationship.

Meantime, the man told the court, while he and the complainant had engaged in consensual anal sex in the past, on the day of the alleged offences, they did not.

Jurors were hung 9 to 3 in favour of “not guilty” on the buggery charge.

The court is expected to decide whether there should be a retrial when the case comes up for a hearing next week.

Two additional charges of rape and money laundering were discarded at the end of the prosecution’s case on Wednesday.

The jury was directed to return verdicts of “not guilty” on those charges since the complainant gave no evidence from the witness stand to support them.

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



    In matters and trials like these, where there is a ‘…Reasonable Doubt,’ it shall be resolved in favor of the accused.

    If not forced to be done at knife or gunpoint, ‘…Why the victim accommodate a penis where it should not be placed, and did not bite or cut off his ding-a-ling’ for all to see?’

    This would have been ‘…strong physical and irrefutable evidence of resistance.’

    Then the Jury would have believed her story.

    This is as much disgusting as it is humiliating to any woman.

    Even more troubling, it begs the questions;

    (i) ‘…Why did the police arrest?

    (ii) …Why did the Magistrate commit for trial? and

    (iii) …Why did the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) indict?’


    (a) ‘…Keep your mouth shut.’ and

    (b) …If forced to open it, for ‘Peace sake and Peril to others,’ bite it to hell off.

    It cannot be placed anywhere else.


        [email protected].

        Most times, it is usually what the reporters are given they report on.

        You do know that no one can ‘…push anything in anyone’s mouth unless he/she opens it.’

        It might be dangerous, but if one is forced to open his/her mouth, then any organ that is pushed in, likened to a piece of ‘…Original KFC, crispy too,’ it should be bitten off.

Comments are closed.