Ex-cop’s rape, buggery conviction upheld

A former policeman who was convicted of raping and buggering a woman, including sexually assaulting her with his gun, has lost his bid to have his 35-year sentence and conviction overturned.

Kevin Taylor was convicted of rape, buggery, four counts of grievous sexual assault, assault, and illegal possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to a maximum of 35 years in the Gun Court.

He received 15 years for illegal possession of a firearm, 35 years for rape and grievous sexual assault, nine years for buggery, and three years for assault.

However, on Friday, the Court of Appeal affirmed most of the sentences while crediting Taylor for the 11 months he had served in jail before his sentence on each count.

The exception was the assault charge, which the judges found had exceeded the maximum one-year penalty. Therefore, the three-year sentence was set aside and replaced with a 12-month sentence. This was, however, further reduced to a month after Taylor was credited for his pre-remand sentence.

Hence, Taylor’s sentence of 35 years, which he had got for rape and grievous sexual assault, was reduced to 34 years and one month. He was ordered to serve 20 years in prison before parole consideration.

The ex-lawman was seeking to have his conviction and sentence overturned on the grounds that the Gun Court judge had no jurisdiction to hear the buggery charge, that the judge failed to apply the principles of sentencing in all seven counts, and also that the judge failed to apply the law in the assault charges.

Prosecutors led evidence that about midnight on December 19, 2018, the complainant was standing at a gas station along Young Street in Spanish Town, St Catherine, awaiting a taxi to get home.

Offered her a ride

Constable Taylor drove up and offered her a lift, which she accepted.

She gave him directions to her house in Spanish Town.

When they arrived, he pulled his licensed firearm and ordered her into the house, where he sexually assaulted her.

In its 29-page judgment, the appellate court described the details of the assault as “disturbing”.

It was revealed that after arriving at the complainant’s house, Taylor took her into her bedroom and ordered her to undress.

He then inserted his finger inside the woman’s anus before ordering her to perform oral sex.

He subsequently raped and buggered her.

During the ordeal, the woman tried to shove him off her, but was slapped in her face.

When he was finished, Taylor forced his gun inside the woman’s mouth and ordered her to “suck off the gun”, after which he placed the gun inside her vagina and ordered her to perform a sex act while moving the gun inside her.

Taylor also performed oral sex on the complainant, spat in her face, and dragged her hair after giving her a substance to drink.

When the assault was finished, the complainant pretended that she was looking for something, left the room and ran to her brother’s house. They then reported the matter, and the complainant, along with her two brothers and the police, returned to her home to find Taylor still present.

Meanwhile, Taylor, in his defence, claimed the complainant had consented to all the sexual acts.

During the appeal, Taylor’s attorney, Melrose Reid, argued that the judge had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in the Gun Court as the offence of buggery is neither a scheduled offence under the Firearms Act nor a felony. She contended that the offence was only triable in the circuit court.

Reid further argued that the judge failed to indicate how he had arrived at some of the sentences and did not identify a starting point.

She also advanced that the sentence for rape and grievous sexual assault were manifestly excessive.

However, the judges, while noting that the issue of whether buggery was triable in the Gun Court appeared to be a novel point, concluded that based on the history of the offence, buggery is a felony and can be tried in the Gun Court.

They, however, found that the judge had erred in principle and had failed to apply the recommended methodology when conducting sentencing.

With respect to the sentence for rape, the judges, while noting that the sentence imposed fell outside the usual range, said, “We are of the view that the sentence imposed, though not manifestly excessive, ought to be set aside and a sentence of 34 years and one-month imprisonment substituted therefore.”

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com