CHIEF Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire in February ruled that rape accused Steve Munilall’s fundamental rights have not been violated or infringed.

Through his attorney Gary Ramlochan, Munilall sought orders that Section 10 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act was not a valid and sustainable charge; that Section 10(3) of the Sexual Offences Act does not constitute a charge known to law; that the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the accused from cross-examining the virtual complainant; and that the omission of the name of the virtual complainant from the particulars of offence renders it defective, null, void and bad in law.

Munilall was charged on December 28, 2016 with the offence of rape of a child under 16, contrary to Section 10 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act, Cap 8:03. By way of Fixed Date Application dated August 17, 2017, the accused sought the aforementioned orders. However, the Chief Justice (ag) ruled that Section 10(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, Cap 8:03 was in fact the offence creating section and not section 10(1).

The court further ruled that the omission of the name of the virtual complainant did not vitiate or void the charge against Munilall, as the Act and the Sexual offences guidelines provided for the anonymity of the complainant. Additionally, Justice George-Wiltshire ruled that none of the applicant’s fundamental rights had been violated and or infringed.