Father of seven jailed over sex crime

| 30/12/2013

(CNS): A 57-year-old West Bay father of seven was handed a twelve month jail sentence two days before Christmas following his conviction on one count of sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl. The man had admitted groping his wife’s niece when she was staying over at the house one night in June 2011 but claimed he had mistaken the teen for his wife as he was drunk and high at the time. A stay-at-home dad after he suffered an industrial accident, the West Bay man has no previous relevant convictions but has been in jail away from his children and grandchildren, whom he also cares for, since he was  convicted in August.  

Given the circumstances of the crime, in which the judge said there was an absence of aggravating factors coupled with the defendant’s remorse and the fact that as soon as the teenager protested the assault stopped, he imposed a twelve month sentence with time served to be taken into consideration. Although the teen had come forward to make the complaint, the court heard that despite requests to do so she did not give a victim impact statement.

The West Bay father was thought to have a low risk of re-offending and had been supported by his wife, who lauded his care of their children and grandchildren since his accident.

The sentence comes following a recent debate in the Legislative Assembly on a private members motion brought by Bodden Town MLA Anthony Eden, which was supported by all members, asking government to consider imposing a minimum jail term of five years for anyone convicted of a sex crime.

The issue of sentences for sex offenders came to the fore earlier this year when a father was convicted of molesting his 8-year-old daughter at least four times over a period of several months and was handed a nine month jail term with three months suspended after his case was heard in the Summary Court. Released from HMP Northward earlier this month, the man, who is also from West Bay, appeared in court on December after the crown had appealed the sentence. The arguments for a stiffer penalty were heard by Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, who is expected to deliver his decision on 10 January.

Category: Crime

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Richard the Lion Hearted says:

    In the good ole days when they were convicted of this type of crime , after sentencing, they were taken out to the town square,  and with has pants pulled down  and face down on a large table, They whopped his Ass with a Cow Cod. They usually to the line after that! And just think! if we did that today we would be saving $50K a year not having to put him in prison.

    Mr. Baines! Where is, the COW COD?   

  2. Anonymous says:

    "Although the teen had come forward to make the complaint, the court heard that despite requests to do so she did not give a victim impact statement." This young lady was brave enough to actually come forward and make a complaint. Those who have never experience molestation or sexual abusedon't know how difficult it is to have something like that happen to you. It is devastating, over 90% of the time it is someone you trust and most of the time the victim blame themselves or think that they somehow could have prevented what happened. The court thinks it is easy for this young lady to give an impact statement? They are asking her to relive what happened and if anyone there knows anything about cases such as these they should realise that a lot of times victims don't even want to believe that it happened, they try to block it out but yet they are pushing her to tell the court how this incident affected her. A bunch of idiots. A lot of times the effects of these things do not surface until years later but then again if you haven't experience such horrendous things they wouldnt know this but a trained psychologist should.

  3. George Towner to dah bone says:

    Imagine, a Child molester only gets 12 months for molesting a child? These Islands need to get with the program when it comes to punishing these predators and stop slapping them on the wrist with a pair of cotten socks. But yet if a person is caught smoking their spiff and minding their own business pun the corner, they"ll sentence that poor person to twenty years in northward. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. I say the sentence for these predators should be fifteen to twenty five in prison, and that should learn em'!.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Why not give him an award while they are at it.

    12 months is BS

  5. Anonymou says:

    Being drunk seems to be the latest defense of the day. The man who was caught calling in the bomb scare used that excuse and now the same excuse is used for molesting a child.

    The "I was drunk at the time" defence doesn't hold water in the sacred vessel of Caymanian justice.

  6. Anonymous says:

    More like a lazy ” stay at home ” molester!! They should give him the ole “broom stick” treatment in NWP! Sick sob.

  7. Anonymouse says:

    Really?

    Can anyone here remember the last time you were so drunk and high that you didn't know whose bed you were getting into?

    Really? Stupid people say such stupid things and stupid people believe them.

  8. Anonymous says:

    This is a disgrace 12 months for groping his wife's 15 year old niece??? How do we know he hasn't done that to his own children.  Drinking isn't an excuse.  The judge should be ashamed of himself with that type of sentence…Cayman is a third world country on the way they deal with sex crimes against woman and most of all children.  Where are the Human Rights issue with this?????? 

    • Anonymous says:

      That's about the sentence he would have got in theUK as well. Stop making comments from a position of ignorance.

      • Anonymous says:

        Don't know where you got that BS from but UK courts stopped accepting the 'I was drunk/stoned at the time' defence years ago. Best bet on current sentencing guidelines is three years jail plus placement on the sex offenders register. 

        • Anonymous says:

          More ignorance. Obviously the court did not accept "I was drunk" as a defence otherwise he would not have been convicted.

          As to where I got my information, CNS's anti-spam is preventing me from giving the exact link but google Sentencing Council Judiciary UK Sexual Offences see page 53. 

          This was a case of intentional sexual touching of a person under the age of 16 which involved  contact with the naked genitalia of victim by offender using part of his or her body other than the genitalia or an object. The sentencing range is 26 weeks–2 years custody, and the starting point is one year. 
           
          Clear enough for you, ignoramus?  
           
    • Dred says:

      Honestly, I am not sure where to go on this one. To me without DETAIL knowledge of the actual incident would say IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE  A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

      It is not difficult for me to see someone drunk entering a poorly lit room and making a mistake like this.

      Now I hear the alcohol statement and I agree Alcohol is no excuse. HOWEVER, it was pointed out that once the identity was realised the incident stopped. This tells me something CLICKED when he realised who it was. Questions such as, was she accustomed to being there? How RARE was this? Could he have forseen this?

      To me. If I was the judge I would want to know if there is ANY CHANCE of this ever happening before. If NO, then I would agree with sentence. Not HAPPILY but agree.

      I would not be the same if he knew who it was and being drunk acted on desire he already had. This is where the ice gets thin. Finding this out is not easy.

      NOW….on top of this sentence I would make him face a MANDATORY rehab program and be on probation for 2 years minimum.

       
      • Anonymous says:

        Whatever dude! I am sure that man knew the difference in touch of a young woman and his wife, drunk or not. Did he think his wife suddenly transformed or something? I am sure that he has been drunk before and since his neice was sleeping in the same room as her cousin, isn't it curious that he mistakenly entered that room on the specific night she was sleeping over? Or has he mistakenly entered the room when only his daughter was there before?

    • Anonymous says:

      Too bad the offender hadn't been caught with ganja too, then he would have felt the wrath of the court. The laws and penaties here don't follow any logic. We need to protect the community from ganja smokers but offenders who sexually assault minor family members are given leniency? Hopefully the assumption of low risk of re-offending is correct.  

    • Anonymous says:

      I honestly can't understand how can there be thumbs down on the defense of innocent childrent…….probably the perverts who are committing the crimes XXXX