Sex convict challenging 42-year sentence

A St Catherine man who was in 2016 convicted of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl is challenging his 42-year sentence in the Court of Appeal.

The 40-odd-year-old convict, whose identity The Gleaner is withholding to protect the victim’s privacy, was sentenced to 42 years on a count of incest and 25 years on a count of grievous sexual assault after he was found guilty in the St Catherine Home Circuit Court.

The judge had, however, ruled that the sentences are to run concurrently and had never indicated the period that Barnes was to serve before any consideration for parole.

The Crown led evidence that, on a date unknown between January 1, 2012 and April 8, 2013, the applicant had sexual intercourse with the complainant, knowing that she was his niece.

The teenager was also forced to participate in oral sex.

The matter was reported and he was arrested and charged.

Following his arraignment, the man denied sexually assaulting his relative while pointing to his good character.

During his trial, he contended that he could not be guilty as he was in prison at the time of the incident.

He was, however, found guilty of the offences and sentenced.

Aggrieved with his sentence, he has appealed on three grounds.

The first is that the judge erred by not clearly revealing how she had arrived at the 42- and 25-year prison terms. The appellant’s defence further contended that the judge failed to identify the normal range of sentences for incest and grievous sexual assault and the appropriate starting point within that range to sentence the applicant.

Secondly, the applicant contends that the trial judge erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines by imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, rendering the sentences for both counts unsafe. According to the sentencing guidelines, the normal range for incest is two to 10 years, and the usual starting point is five years, while the normal range for grievous sexual assault is 15 to 25 years, with the usual starting point being 15 years.

The final ground was that the sentencing judge erroneously considered allegations made by a community member which were presented in the social enquiry report and were deemed to be highly prejudicial and led to the excessively high sentence.

In the meantime, the case was scheduled to start in the Court of Appeal today, but has been removed for a new date to be fixed.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com