SEVERAL sexual offences cases were either nolle prosequi (abandoned) by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or were dismissed for lack of prosecution in the last criminal session.

In a recent statement, the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) have said that during the June assizes of the Demerara High Court, fourteen matters were nolle prosequi by DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack. Ten of those matters were for sexual offences, one was for unlawful wounding, another was for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and two were for manslaughter.

In nine of the ten sexual offences’ cases, the complainants either testified in court, or, by way of writing, indicated that they did not wish to proceed with their matters; while one complainant has since migrated and could not be located.

In the four other matters, the complainants could not be located despite police searches at their last known addresses and notices being published for them to attend court, the DPP Chambers have said.

LOW CONVICTIONS
Meanwhile, despite efforts being made to reduce the backlog of cases in the courts, only 29 of the 116 that were listed for the June assizes — which ended in late September — were disposed of; with the DPP securing only three convictions.

In the Goal Delivery Report released on September 30, the DPP Chambers said that during the assizes which commenced on Tuesday 7th June, 2016, a total of 116 cases were listed to be heard, of which 29 were disposed of. Fifteen received attention in the High Court, and 14 were nolle prosequi by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Of the 15 matters presented, there were eight formal verdicts of not guilty, three not-guilty verdicts by jury, one guilty plea, two guilty verdicts, and one hung jury.

During the session, Justice Navindra Singh disposed of five cases — one each for the offences of murder, rape of a child under 16 years, carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 years and abduction, and two matters for the offence of rape. In the one matter for the offence of murder, the trial judge held up a no-case submission and directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty. In the one case for the offence of rape of a child under 16 years, the accused was acquitted after the jury returned a not-guilty verdict. In the one matter for the offence of carnal knowledge and abduction, the complainant testified that she did not wish to proceed with the matter, and Justice Singh directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.

WITHDRAWAL
In the two cases for the offence of rape, both complainants testified in court that they did not wish to proceed with their matters, and Justice Singh directed the jury to return formal verdicts of not guilty.

During the month of June, Justice Jo-Ann Barlow completed four cases, one each for the offence of murder, carnal knowledge, buggery, and indecent assault and rape of a child under 16 years. In the one matter for the offence of murder, the accused, who was indicted on three counts of the offence, pleaded guilty to the lesser count of manslaughter and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He becomes eligible for parole after serving 30 years. In the one case for the combined offences of buggery and indecent assault, where three accused were indicted together, the jury unanimously found the number one accused guilty of buggery and indecent assault. He was sentenced to a total of 29 years’ imprisonment, 25 years for the offence of buggery, and four for the offence of indecent assault. The number 2 accused was, by a majority verdict, found guilty of the offence of indecent assault and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment; while the number three accused was acquitted by the jury on all three charges. In the one case for the offence of two counts of rape, the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on both counts.

For her part, Justice Beharry disposed of three matters, one each for the offences of carnal knowledge of girl under 15 years, murder, and rape of a child under 16 years. In the two separate cases of carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 years and rape of a child under 16 years, both complainants failed to attend court, and, as a result, the State offered no further evidence against them. Justice Beharry thus directed that the juries return formal verdicts of not guilty.

In the lone case for the offence of murder, the accused, indicted on two counts and having had two hung juries in previous trials, was unanimously found guilty on both counts, and was sentenced to death.

Justice Bovell-Drakes completed three matters: one for the offence of murder, and two for the offence of rape of a child under 16 years. In the case for the offence of murder, the jury failed to reach a verdict, and the trial judge ordered that the accused be returned to prison to await a new trial. In one of the two matters for the offence of rape of a child under 16 years, the accused was acquitted after the jury returned a majority verdict of not guilty. In the other case, the complainant failed to attend court, and this resulted in the judge directing the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty in favour of the accused.