…Justice George to sum up evidence this morning
JUSTICE Roxanne George will, this morning, sum up the evidence to the jury in the case in which Devon Mc Farlene, called ‘Kang’, allegedly raped a 26-year-old security guard and mother of three at Bachelor’s Adventure, East Coast Demerara. The mixed jury is expected to return its verdict this afternoon. Members of the jury are also entitled to disagree on a verdict.
The woman said she was walking along Bachelor’s Adventure Road on her way home from work, on January 11, 2009 at about 12:40hrs, when she was attacked by the accused who was armed with a large rusty gun.
She told the police that she was able to recognize the face of the accused by means of a street light.
In her evidence, the woman said, “He placed the gun behind my neck and told me to keep on walking and not to make any sound. I obeyed his order, and he kept walking behind me.
“He asked me if I had any money or gold at home, and who was at home. I told him that I have three children at home, I had gold but I am not certain if there was any money.  He asked me if my husband was at home, and I said ‘no’.
“We walked towards my home, (and) when we got there, the accused peeped through the window and saw my husband with the three children.
“After seeing my husband in the home, he told me to follow him back to an unfinished concrete house. I did so. There, he searched my pockets and found $820. He said that the money meant nothing to him, and he ordered me to take of my clothing.
“I told him that it (made) no sense because I have a small baby to nurse. The accused then raped me. The ordeal took about 15 minutes. He then left, telling me that if he happened to hear anything in the morning, he would return for me.”
The victim told the court that she had known the accused sometime before, and that he had known her husband, since they had drunk together at a birthday party some time ago.
She did not seize the first opportunity to tell her husband that night that the accused was the person who had raped her. Instead, she said that it was a person about 5 feet 6 inches tall, with natty hair.
In his address to the jury, defence counsel Mr Ronald Burch-Smith suggested that, inasmuch as the victim told the police and the court that she had recognized the accused as a person she had known sometime ago, were such the case, she would have told her husband the truth the same night, instead of giving him a physical description of her alleged attacker.
Counsel also suggested that since shops operated in the area, the jury should consider whether a person  with a long gun could parade  a person through that street unnoticed, as the victim had claimed.
Noting that his client had led an alibi defence, counsel asked the jury to give him the benefit of the doubt by returning a not guilty verdict.
After the matter was reported to the police, the victim was taken to the scene, where she pointed out the spot where the alleged offence had been committed. She also pointed out the accused, who was sitting on a bridge at the time of her revisiting the scene.
In responding to the police that day, the accused did not explain that he had been at home with his wife on the night in question, but said in answer to the allegation, “I am a married man, I wouldn’t do that. I know your husband.”
The woman’s husband also gave evidence in court, testifying that his wife did not tell him she had personally known the accused.
Conversely, prosecutor Renita Singh urged the jury to find that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the alibi defence was just an afterthought.
She said that if the accused was indeed at home with his wife on that occasion, he would not have waited for three years to claim that he was at home with his darling wife and children when the offence was allegedly committed.