The State v Webster Edmond [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Dominica |
| Judge | Stephenson J |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2013 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2013] ECSC J0315-3 |
| Court | High Court (Dominica) |
| Docket Number | DOM HCR2012/013 |
| Date | 15 March 2013 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL)
DOM HCR2012/013
Non-consensual sex is a traumatic and humiliating experience and, although
the particular circumstances in which the rape takes place may affect the sentence imposed.
On the 21st September 2012 the defendant Webster Edmond was indicted for the following offences:
Count 1: Kidnapping contrary to section 65 (a) of The Offences against the persons Act1
Count 2: Abduction contrary to the provision of section 22(1) (b) of the Sexual Offences Act2
Count 3: Indecent Assault contrary to the provisions of section 13 (1) (b) of the Sexual Offences Act
Count 4: Unlawful Sexual Intercourse contrary to the provisions of section 8(1) (a) & (b) of the Sexual Offences Act3
Count 5: Possession of Ammunition with intent to endanger life contrary to section 12(1) of Firearms Act4
Count 6: Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to section 12(1) of Firearms Act5
The defendant was arraigned on the 25th of September 2012 and pleaded not guilty. His trial date was set for the 6th November 2012 which trial date was adjourned to the 3rd December 2012 on
which day the matter was traversed to the January 2013 Assizes. The assizes commenced on the 15th January 2013 and the matter was fixed for trial on the 4th February 2013.On the 4th February 2013 the trial commenced, the jury was empanelled, the defendant was put in the charge of the jury, the jury homily completed and the first witness, the Virtual Complainant gave her evidence in chief and there after she was cross examined by Defence Counsel and questioned by the jury. At the end of the virtual complainants testimony, Mr. Peter Alleyne, Learned Counsel for the Defendant applied to the court for the indictment to be re-read to the defendant whereupon he pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 4, 5 and 6. The Learned Director of Public Prosecution withdrew counts 2 and 3.
The Defendant is now before the court for sentencing.
The facts as agreed by Learned Counsel for both parties and as disclosed from the sworn evidence of the virtual complainant can be stated as thus. On the 17th February 2011, SJ who was then 15 years old and a fourth form high school student was on her way to school at about 6:30 a.m. She was dressed in her school uniform. She did not return home from school that day and a report was made to the police who initiated a search and an investigation.
Whilst SJ was on her way to school, she told the Court that she was called by the defendant initially that she did not respond, in fact she ran from the access road that she was walking on onto the main road. She was frightened. SJ we were told went back to the access road to see who it was that was calling her when the defendant called her by name. He grabbed her and forced her to accompany him. At this time the defendant was armed with a shot gun which terrified SJ.
The defendant took SJ across the Layou River on his back and then forced her to walk some 30 to 40 minutes south of her home to the heights of Clark Hall to a place called "Man Joe" which is a heavily wooded area south of the Layou River and above the cliffs.
From then on and for a period of forty days and forty nights the defendant kept SJ prisoner. He moved her from place to place on many occasions travelling usually by night which terrified the young lady and made her skeptical about escaping. The areas that the defendant held SJ were on the flats high up in the mountains where the surroundings were heavily forested and very bushy.
Whilst SJ was held captive by the defendant they ate ground provisions which he got from the bush and on occasions she ate meat and drank soft drinks which he broughtto her. Whilst in captivity, the virtual complainant hardly bathed and wore her school uniform and a shirt given to her by the defendant Whilst she was in captivity, the defendant had sexual intercourse with SJ every day including the day he took her captive and sometimes twice a day.
At around the same time a missing person report was filed for the defendant who was 37 years old and an employee of a trucking service located close to where the virtual complainant lived.
Extensive searches and surveillance were conducted by the Commonwealth of Dominica Police Force and on Monday 28th March 2011, the defendant was observed by Police Officers with a bag on his back and a twelve gauge shot gun in his hand. He was apprehended and arrested by the police and was found to be also in possession of five (5) rounds of ammunition. Upon his arrest the defendant led the officers to "Man Joe" where the virtual complainant SJ was found in an improvised tent
A search was conducted of the tent and eleven (11) more rounds of ammunition were found and a quantity of what appeared to beCannabis Sativa.
The virtual complainant told the court that during the time that she was up in the mountains in captivity she hardly bathed and in fact she was found in a disheveled condition with her hair all matted. She was taken to the hospital where she was examined by the doctor and she was later admitted to a Psych unit at the hospital for a short while.
SJ told the court that she still has nightmares and the terrible memories of her ordeal still affect her. She told us that she has had to return to the hospital and the Psychiatric unit on occasion. SJ has returned to school and is now in fifth form however she told us that her friends remind her of the incident and sometimes in school while she is in class she would see the defendant in her mind.
In her testimony before the court SJ described to the court some of the sexual encounters she suffered at the hands of the defendant
The defendant confessed to kidnapping SJ and that he had sexual intercourse with her many times. He also admitted to being in possession of a twelve gauge shot gun and ammunition without being licenced to carry same.
A Pre-sentence Report and a Psychiatric Report was ordered by the Court which reports were provided by Mr. Leroy Morvan, Welfare Officer and Mr. Griffin Benjamin MD, MPH, MBA, DM Consultant Psychiatrist respectively.
Learned Counsel for the defendant Mr. Peter Alleyne in his written submissions on mitigation and sentencing urged the Court to take into consideration the contents of the Pre-sentence Report in support of his contention that the defendant was exposed to physical and emotional abuse as a child at the hands of his father whilst having a very loving relationship with his mother. Counsel urged the Court to consider that the defendants motivation was to assist the victim in her troubles and that his actions were not an act of pedophilia. I hasten to say that I do not agree with Counsel's contention as to the defendants motivation. It would be indeed a bizarre thought for an adult male to kidnap a young teenage girl from the road on her way to school and take her up the mountains into the bushes into the wilderness so to speak and subject her to continued sexual abuse and say he was doing it to assist her.
In the report the Welfare Officer interviewed a number of persons, the virtual complainants mother, the accused and his mother, members of the community who knew both the virtual complainant and the accused and some of the teacher's at SJ's school.
It is to be noted that regrettably the Welfare Officer was unable to conduct an interview with the virtual complainant due to feeling that since the incident she has become unstable and there was a fear that an interview with her would cause her more harm than good. However during her evidence in Court she spoke of how she felt since the incident and that has been taken into consideration in my sentencing decision.
The accused expressed no remorse for his actions and is in some denial as to his responsibility in the matter at hand. In fact the accused seemed to be more concerned about his deprived liberty than with the offence for which he is before the Court. He is regarded by some members of the community as being a threat The accused is said to have been subjected to physical abuse by his father and as having a difficult childhood with no academic achievement It is noted that he is no stranger to law enforcement having had previous criminal convictions.
The law has vested a wide discretion in the High Court on sentencing to ensure that the punishment imposed reflects the justice of the case having regard to the particular facts of each case. At all times the punishment should fit the crime.
This however is not an arbitrary exercise. The sentencing Judge is required to take into consideration the principles and objects of sentencing which are punishment deterrence, rehabilitation and the protection of the society as applied by Chief Justice Hugh Wooding (as he then was) in 1964 in Trinidad & Tobagoin the case of Benjamin -v- R6 and later expounded by Lawton LJ in R v Sergeant7and judicially acknowledged and applied in the Eastern Caribbean in the Desmond Baptiste case8.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of Kidnapping. Section 65 (a) of the Offences against The Persons Act says:
"Any person who, without lawful authority, forcibly seizes and confines or imprisons any other person within the State, or kidnaps any other person with intent-
(a) To cause the other person to be secretly confined or imprisoned in the State against his will; …is liable to imprisonment for seven years…."
The offence of Kidnapping is defined as consisting of
"the taking and carrying away of one person by another by force or by fraud without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse"9
...
To continue reading
Request your trial