CONVICTED rapist Adams was held on a complaint of larceny and later was accused of rape, after he maintained his innocence of robbery and set out to prove that the alleged victim was his lover who had been prompted to bring the theft charge because of his unkept promise to her.

The woman denied the lover allegation by the accused, but after he set out to prove his point that night by identifying her underwear, etc. the complainant in a direct turn around, moved away from the larceny charge, and for the first time reported that she was raped by the appellant.
The said policeman who was investigating a report of robbery took a statement from the woman in relation to the rape allegation.
That policeman went on to charge Adams with rape and at his trial before the judge and jury the mixed jury believed the story as told by the complainant, and convicted Adams for rape.
After being convicted Adams appealed against the conviction and sentence.
That appeal was heard by the Federal Supreme Court, constituted by Judges Rennie, Archer and Wylie, who allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Adams was freed by the Federal Supreme Court.
According to the facts of the case as disclosed by the Federal Supreme Court, Vinton Jarvis complained to the police that the appellant snatched a ring and 25 cents from her during that night.
The appellant replied that he had known her for six months and had an affair with her and that her allegations were made because of his failure to fulfill certain promises to her.
Upon Jarvis denying the affair of having known the appellant before, the appellant said that he could tell the kind of underwear she was wearing.
Jarvis, then for the first time told of having been raped. The appellant having been convicted of rape appealed the ruling.
The FSC held that: (i) Jarvis’s statement that she was raped was by way of face saving and was not a complaint that could be taken into account to show that she was consistent in her conduct or to negative consent;
(ii) save in exceptional circumstances a Court of Appeal will not upset the verdict of a jury, but the conviction could not safely be allowed to stand.
Appeal allowed
C. Weithers appeared for the appellant while E. A Romao, Senior Crown Counsel represented the Crown.
Delivering the judgment of the Court Justice Rennie said: “This appeal is from a conviction for rape. On the 4th June, 1960, Special Reserve Newton Albert was cycling along Sussex Steet and came upon Vinton Jarvis and the appellant.
Jarvis was holding the appellant’s bicycle. She called out to Special Reserve Constable Albert and reported to him that the appellant had snatched a ring and 25 cents from her.
Albert took them to the to the Ruimveldt Police Station and reported to Corporal Dundas what Jarvis had told him on Sussex Street. Corporal Dundas then asked the appellant if he heard what the Special Reserve Constable had said, where upon the appellant said he had known Jarvis for six months, they had an appointment on that night and he took her to the Back of Alexander Village and had an affair with her and it is because he did not fulfill certain promises he made to her that she made the allegations against him.
“Jarvis denied knowing the appellant before that night. She said that she never went to the back of Alexander Village with him. The appellant met this denial by telling Corporal Dundas that he could tell him the kind of underwear she was wearing.
“Confronted with such a challenge, Jarvis for the first time told of having been raped. It is in that setting that the jury had to decide whether or not Jarvis consented to intercourse with the appellant. It does not appear anywhere in that setting that Jarvis made a complaint to Special Reserve Constable Albert or to Corporal Dundas or to anyone else that she was raped. Her answer to the appellant’s challenge is clearly not a complaint.
“If she had complained that fact could be taken into account to show that she was consistent in her conduct and it could also be taken into account to negative consent. But as we have already pointed out she did not complain; what she did was by way of face saving and could not in any way negative consent.
Such a challenge, Jarvis for the first time told of having been raped. It is in that setting that the jury had to decide whether or not Jarvis consented to the intercourse with the appellant.
“It does not appear anywhere in that setting that Jarvis made a complaint to Special Reserve Constable Albert or to Corporal Dundas or to anyone else that she was raped. Her answer to the appellant’s challenge is clearly not a complaint.”
“If she had complained that fact could be taken into account to show that she was consistent in her conduct and it could also be taken into account to negative consent.”
“But as we have already pointed out she did not complain; what she did was by way of face saving and could not in any way negative consent.”
“The only other evidence that deals with the question of consent is that of a medical witness who examined Jarvis and found slight generalised tenderness of her vagina and expressed the opinion that such tenderness is never caused by intercourse by consent. ‘
“On the other hand another medical witness called by the prosecution disagreed with the opinion expressed by the other doctor.”
“The question now arises what this court should do in a case of that kind . Except in exceptional circumstances, a Court of Appeal will not upset the verdict of a jury for the simple reason that the jury had the opportunity of hearing and seeing the witnesses when giving their testimony.”
“We consider this an exceptional case and one coming within the provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Federal Supreme Court (Appeals) Ordinance, 1958 which provides: “The Federal Supreme Court on any such appeal against conviction shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.”
“This is a conviction that we think cannot safely be allowed to stand. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the conviction quashed and the sentence set aside. Appeal allowed.”

(By George Barclay)