A man who was on trial in the High Court for three sexual offences against his daughter was set free yesterday when Justice Navindra Singh directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty after the complainant  did not turn up in court to testify.

Consequently the prosecution could not offer further evidence against the accused who had been a remand prisoner for six years.
Earlier, the man, whose name is being withheld to protect the complainant’s identity, had pleaded not guilty to the charges of incest, carnal knowledge and buggery.
The first witness called by the prosecution was Police Corporal Alicia Fraser who testified that despite all efforts made to find the victim, at her Sophia address and through announcements via NCN Radio countrywide, the police had failed to locate her since 2012.
Before taking any further action, the marshal of the court called the complainant’s name to ascertain whether she had turned up eventually, but he returned empty handed. He reported to the court that the witness was still missing.
At this stage, leading prosecutor, Miss Rhondel Weever in association with Miss Renita Singh told the court that she would be closing her case and would not be offering further evidence against the accused.
Consequently Justice Singh, acting in accordance with the law, had no alternative than to direct the jury to return formal verdicts of not guilty in respect of the three offences of incest, rape and buggery.
After the jury had complied with the judge’s directions, the judge told the freed man that the jury had found him not guilty and that he was free to leave.
He then left the dock looking like a tired man. It was his first freedom walk in six years since he was held for the three sex offences in February, 2008, and was not granted bail.
Incest is contrary to Section 66 (1) of the Criminal (Offences) Act Chapter 8: 01 as amended by the Criminal Law Offences (Amendment) Act of 2005.
The second count accused him of having on the 5th day of February, 2008, carnal knowledge of a girl of the age of 13 years.
The third count of buggery is contrary to Section 353 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Chapter 8:01 accusing him of having between the 1st and 29th day of February, 2008 committed buggery on the girl.
The accused who had pleaded not guilty to all the charges was represented by attorney-at-law, Mr. Huckumchand.