Alleged rapist freed

ALLEGED rapist Adams who was convicted in 1961 successfully appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.

This happened after the convicted man, who had originally been charged with larceny from the person on a report from a girl, had that charge substituted for rape when attempting to convince the police that he was not a robber but a discarded lover.
At the Ruimveldt Police Station, he submitted to the cops his story, which was to the effect that he and the girl were chums.
Adams said they had gone to a dark spot at the back of Alexander Village, where they had a rollicking time, in a sex escapade based on promises that he made to her.
But he claimed that after he reneged on his promises, the girl became unfriendly and reported the matter to a cop whom they had met on the road, claiming that she was robbed.
The girl denied that the two engaged in any sexual activity
But when the accused attempted to prove his case by disclosing that he could name the colour of the underwear she was wearing at the time, the girl then claimed that the accused had sex with her without her consent.
Adams was subsequently charged with rape and appeared before the judge and jury where he was convicted by the jury.
He appealed the decision.
Mr. Carlton Weithers appeared for the appellant.
Mr. E. A. Ramao appeared for the Crown.
Following the hearing of the appeal the Federal Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.
The Federal Supreme Court was substituted by Justices Rennie, C.V.H. Archer & C. Wylie.

According to the Appellate Court, the appellant was convicted of rape. The defence’s case was consent .
The woman first accused the appellant before a constable of having snatched a ring and money from her.
She repeated that accusation at the police station and made the accusation of rape only after the appellant had said that he had intercourse with her with her consent.
The only other evidence relevant to the issue of consent was that of the medical witnesses who
were in conflict with each other.
The Court held that the conviction could not safely be allowed to stand and the provisions of s. 16 (1) of the Supreme Court (Appeals) Ordinance, 1958 [B.G.] should be applied.
Section 16 (1) of the Federal Supreme Court (Appeals) Ordinance , 1958 [B.G.] , provides as follows: “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….”
In delivering the facts, Justice Rennie on June 4, 1960 Special Reserve Constable Newton Albert was cycling along Sussex Street and came upon Vinton Jarvis and the appellant; Jarvis was holding the appellant’s bicycle. She called out to S.R.C. Albert and reported to him that the appellant had snatched a ring and 25 cents from her.
Albert took them 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 had heard what the Special Reserve Constable had said, whereupon 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 fulfil certain promises he made to her that she made the allegations against him.
Jarvis denied knowing the appellant before that night. She said she never went to the back of Alexander Village with him.
The appellant met this denial by telling Cpl 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 the intercourse with the appellant. It does not appear anywhere in that setting that Jarvis made a complaint to S. R. C. Albert or to Corporal Dundas or to anyone else that she was raped.
Her answer to the appellant’s challenge was clearly not a complaint, the court found.
Justice Rennie ruled that 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, be negative consent,” the Judge stated.
The only other evidence that deals with the question of consent is that of a medical witness who examined Jarvis and found slight generalized 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 coming within the provisions of s. 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.”
Justice of Appeal Rennie concluded his judgment by saying: “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.”