I refer to the article “Magistrate critical of Sexual Offences Bill” carried in the Saturday July 10 edition of the Kaieteur News.
If the statements attributed to Mr. Chandra Sohan, as having been made in judging a debate on the Sexual Offences Bill are correct, it is astonishing! It is quite clear that he is misinformed about this Act and its antecedents, and that it would have been prudent on his part to have briefed himself before making the pronouncements which he did. His comments raise the issue of the need for the judiciary to provide urgent training on this Act for its officers.
Mr. Sohan comments on the harshness of the penalties for sexual offences. Is he insensitive to the pain, the agony and suffering endured by the victims who are predominantly women and children? When he speaks of the new legislation not being much of an improvement on the old it is very clear that he has not taken the trouble to really read the new legislation. He should be aware of the fact that prior to this new Sexual Offences Act, the existing legislation was more than a century old and did not reflect the advances in today’s society. Existing systems in the delivery of justice and support for victims also required overhauling and these were fully addressed, taking into consideration the views and experiences shared by the Guyanese society. Indeed a cursory comparison of the old and new legislation would have provided Mr. Sohan with the information he appears to lack.
It is indeed outrageous that the magistrate should seek to associate or rationalise the prevalence of criminal sexual offences on his subjective judgment of what is “vanity and promiscuous lifestyles among young girls”
Admittedly, there are several social issues of concern in our society and these are being addressed within the framework of resources available. In many ways these are underpinned by legislative measures and social polices.
For Mr. Sohan’s enlightenment, he needs to know that the Sexual Offences Bill benefited from in excess of 60 consultations which were conducted country wide, and that there were hundreds of recommendations, comments, complaints and expressions of hope. In the process of these consultations victims, perpetrators, men and women, lawyers, magistrates, politicians, clergymen, pundits, majees, police officers, senior students of the school system, medical practiconers, cane cutters etc. voiced their views and made recommendations. It is unfortunate that Mr. Sohan never sought the opportunity to be part of this very wide and broad based consultation process.
We urge the magistrate to look more closely at this new Legislation and enlighten himself before he makes further comments or adjudicates on any issue under the Sexual Offences Act.