Paedophile escapes more jail

| 10/01/2014

(CNS): The chief justice has doubled the length of a controversially short prison sentence given to a father who sexually abused his 8-year-olddaughter but the 45-year-old man has escaped a return to jail. The nine month sentence given to the West Bay father, who cannot be named by order of the court, has been overturned by the country's top judge as a result of a successful appeal by the crown and increased to 18 months. However, for a number of reasons Chief Justice Anthony Smellie said the additional nine months would be suspended for two years, along with the remaining suspended time of three months.

He also ordered that the suspension was to begin from 13 December, when the offender was released from HMP Northward having served six months from the original term.

The chief justice pointed to a number of reasons for suspending the additional nine months of the sentence, not least the pleas of the victim, as well as the problem that sending the man back to jail would be "tantamount to double jeopardy", given that he had served his sentence and had complied with all orders so far relating to his conviction.

However, the CJ found that the original sentence was "unduly lenient", as he allowed the crown's appeal. The senior judge pointed to the chief magistrate's failure to fully consider all of the aggravating factors in what has proved to be a difficult case that has many mitigating circumstances as well. He also noted that the chief magistrate had mitigated the sentence in favour of the victim as much as for the offender, a point with which he appeared to sympathise.

In his ruling, in which he increased the total sentence, CJ Smellie said that the convicted man must continue with the psychological counseling to his counselors' level of satisfaction and that should he re-offend during the next two years he would return to jail for the full remaining but currently suspended twelve months. The judge also recommended that the family of the victim seek a protection order to prevent the man from being alone at any time with his daughter, who is still only 13 years old, or any other young vulnerable people.

The case has caused significant outcry in the community as the assaults on the child were serious and even described as "repulsive' by the chief justice in his decision. But the catalogue of mitigating factors had also swayed the magistrate. The feelings of the victim, who is confused and seriously damaged by the abuse, have also influenced both the summary decision and now the appeal.

The daughter had pleaded with the court ahead of the appeal not to send her father back to jail; throughout the entire episode since revealing the abuse she has blamed herself about what has happened to her father and does not seem to understand that she is the victim, not him. Not only has she been exceptionally concerned and upset about her father going to jail but also about the impact of his imprisonment on her sibling.

In his ruling the chief justice points to the troubling circumstances of the case, where the victim of the abuse can also become a victim of the punishment handed out to the offender.

"It is indeed a peculiar aspect of this troubling case that this vulnerable girl is not yet mature enough to appropriately grasp and come to terms with the abuse she has suffered but would blame herself, quite unfairly, for her father's predicament. That this is an ongoing concern even at the time of this appeal is evident from the letters," he said, as he pointed to the correspondence submitted by the victim and her sibling to the court. CJ Smellie said there was clearly a genuine bondof affection between the offender and his children which added a further emotional burden to the victim.

"She is clearly prone to blaming herself if he is further imprisoned for offences committed against her. In the particular circumstances of this case, it must be accepted that these are powerful factors influencing the decision on the appropriate period of incarceration."

While the chief justice noted that the impact of an offender's prison term on the victim cannot by itself be a reason for reducing a sentence, it played a part in this case. He said he found the sentence was unduly lenient but his decision to suspend the sentence was also influenced in part by the victim's circumstances.

With deterrence in mind, Smellie said the case called for a longer sentence, hence the increase from nine months to 18 months, but given the pleas of the victim, the issue of double jeopardy and the fact that the offender had served and complied with all of the conditions of the sentence, he suspended the now remaining twelve months.

Category: Crime

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Slowpoke says:

    Did he receive a "Treatment Order" under the new Mental Health Act? 

    I would be much more pleased with that, than simple incarceration without treatment (too muchtime to fanatsize, plan, fail to develop adult relationships…) resulting in a much greater risk of recidivism. 

  2. Anonymous says:

    To 10/012014     17.35

    I agree with you,he should be ashamed of himself,and to those people who gave the thumbs down to that  comment ,what's wrong with you?  You think he should not be ashamed?

    Bloody hell,think of the child.inocence snatched  away ,she will be forever damaged and scared.its absolutely heart braking .

  3. Anonymous says:

    His name should be released. He doesn't deserve the protection his daughter didn't get.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Well, this is some message to other paedophiles and sex offenders in our community (and by some accounts there are a significant amount). They can offend, there is little chance of getting caught, and if they do get caught, the consequences will be minimal.

    Meanwhile the authorities (at nearly all levels) are far more concerned with chasing after marijuana users?? and naming them (including on a police record) and jailing them.

    Go figure??

  5. Anonymous says:

    The Courts have wasted taxpayer money once again.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Disgusting. Name and shame him!

  7. Anonymous says:

    What a p.o.s. This guy deserves to rot.

  8. Anonymous says:
     
     
    This is a disgrace he should be named; he is not only a danger to his daughter but a danger  to any child that comes in contact with him.
    Who will take responsibility if another incident occurs?
  9. Anonymous says:

    The courts owe it to these children to watch over them, provide counseling, and be diligent to monitor this father.  Surely a probation officer and family worker are assigned? Don't let the time outside of jail slip through the cracks.  

    What does the baby mamma say?

  10. Anonymous says:

    You all cant spell or what ? There is no A in pedophile. Dont you use spell check ? Aren't you embarrassed by all the spelling mistakes you mske ???

    CNS: British spelling – "paedophile", American spelling – "pedophile". 

    • Anonymous says:

      mske or make?

    • Anonymous says:

      My goodness.  How ignorant.

    • Professor Speller says:

      It’s CAN’T not cant. In addition, it’s DON’T not dont. Who’s embarrassed now???! Eat crow, or a Ching-Ching.

    • Anonymous says:

      The word 'make' in the latter part of your nonsense is not spelt 'mske'.  Therefore you also should be embarrassed.

    • Anonymous says:

      Or, put another way, "paedophile" is correct, anything is else wrong.  Look at the Union Jack in the flag and realise "American English" is a foreign language.

    • Anonymous says:

      There is an "a" in paedophile in the British spelling, and also one in asshole, but you'd not mske that out because you cant spell and dont use spell check.  Demfarkin boo-stairds…

    • Dick Shaughneary says:

      Step away from your computer and leave this sort of thing to those that can spell difficult words.  If you want something else to do online, I suggest you type "apostrophe how to use" into your favourite seach engine and read the suggested links.  With baby steps and some hard work, in a year or two you could advance to the written English of a ten year old.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Incredibly infuriating. Has anyone checked to make sure that this child is not being pressured by her  rapist (let's just call him what he is) or other family members, to write these letters and show support for him?  Hopefully she is getting appropriate therapy and is surrounded by supportive individuals who will help her understand that she is the victim and did nothing to deserve what this scumbag did to her.  Other than the murder of a child, I don't think there is any crime worse than raping a child.  We must re-vamp our laws so that the punishment fits the crime.  Every country should have a no tolerance policy on child rape. Pecker, balls and one hand, gone! Statistics show that the majority of rapists cannot be rehabilitated and do re-offend. They are a menace to society and need to be locked away, for good.

    • Maliki says:

      There was NO rape in the traditional sense. Also no murder. Witch hunt much?

      • Anonymous says:

        What the hell do you mean "there was NO rape"? Are you so ignorant of what happened that you think this coud've been anything BUT? What exactly keeps it from being rape, pray tell? I would LOVE to hear this one.

        • Anonymous says:

          Rape involves sexual intercourse. There was no sexual intercourse. Got it?

      • Anonymous says:

        "Statutory Rape

        Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age.

        The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

        Most legislatures include statutory rape provisions in statutes that punish a number of different types of sexual assault. Statutory rape is different from other types of rape in that force and lack of consent are not necessary for conviction. A defendant may be convicted of statutory rape even ifthe complainant explicitly consented to the sexual contact and no force was used by the actor. By contrast, other rape generally occurs when a person overcomes another person by force and without the person's consent."

        It was traditional statutory rape.!!

        • Anonymous says:

          Ummmm… the child was not penetrated; there was no sexual intercourse and therefore no rape. Thanks for proving the point you were trying to disprove.  

      • Anonymous says:

        They always say if you are going to rape someone do it in a non- traditional way.

    • Anonymous says:

      As disgusting as this man's acts were towards his own child they did not constitute rape which involves sexual intercourse. Let's not confuse terms.

  12. Anonymous says:

    @CNS

    As someone who is entirely against any sexual offense, especially against children or anyone who commits it, infact this and any ANY act of child abuse should never be tolerated or committed in the first place.But who gave the Editor @ CNS the right/authority to publicly label someone who is convicted/known to have committed this type of offense only once, a paedophile?

    Does the Editor know if this individual was or still remains to fit the meaning of the word/label used. Does the Editor know the indiviuals mind before, during and after he committed this ugly act? Does the Editor know if the offender IS attracted attracted to young (or older) children? And if so, does the Editor know if there has NOT been a profound transformation of this indiviual's life and mind before using this stigmatic label?

    When using the word/lable as you have, does the Editor understand the additional damage that may be caused to the affected family in this case as they try to rebuild their lives in our community every aspect?

    Do we not think that the words "Sex Offender" could have been adhered to?

    Does the Editor understand the meaning of "Responsible Journalism"?

    Paedophile
     
    [peduh-fahyl or, esp. British, pee-duh] Show IPA
    noun Psychiatry.

    an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

     

    • Anonymous says:

      IMO the term paedophile or pedophile refers to this man to a T.  Anadult attracted to a child.  She was 8 years old which is a child and to make matters worse his own child.  Happened more than once too.  He better thank God he committed this crime in the Cayman Islands and not the US.  Prisoners in the US including the most hardened criminal considers sexual abuse of a child the worst crime you can committ and they do not hesitate to deal with the molestors in their own way.

    • Anonymous says:

      So.. a man has sexually offended against a child and then escaped and you are worried about whether or not he is labelled a sex offender or a pedophile?

      What kind of priorities do you have? 

      I don't understand how the choice of which words by CNS will have any effect whatsoever on the family of the victim. What affected them was the sex offense of a pedophile, not the reporting of it on CNS. 

      I mean really now. I can just see the thought process of the victim now. "I was assaulted by a sex offender but I'll be ok because it was just a sex offender. Thank GOD it wasn't a pedophile because I would never recover from the additional damage cause me if it had been a pedophile who assaulted me and not merely a sex offender". 

      Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it. 

      As for the stigma of a label of pedophile vs sex offender against a child. Hmm.. apples and apples if you ask me. If this person didn't want the stigma then perhaps he should have thought twice before committing the crime. 

      I see no logic at all in your post. Sorry. 

       

       

    • Anonymous says:

      You must be kidding.

      The culprit has not been publicly identified so I don't see how any additional damage can be caused to the victim or family by using the term "paedophile" rather than "sex offender", which is quite correct in any event.

      The fact that anyone not only had such a thought in their heads but acted it out on a number occasions over a period of many months leaves no doubt as to their sexual attraction to young children.

      Statistics and human psychology show that paedophiles do not suddenly have a "profound transformation" beause they spent 6 months in prison for their crime when caught.

      Anyone disgusting enough to do that on a repeated basis to their own 8 old daughter would quite happily do the same to any other child if they thought they could get away with it.   

       

       

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree with you, CNS should replace the word Paedophile with Pervert. More people would understand that word, and even a one-off occurrence is enough to earn that label.

  13. Anonymous says:

    He should have twenty years. By that time the poor girl will be grown up and can protect herself. Will she be living away from him on his return from a few months in prison? He is so lucky that he is in the Northward prison versus a Spanish prison as he would never be able to see his daughter again.

  14. Anonymous says:

    What a shame! Minimum sentences please?

  15. Anonymous says:

    Is this the proper message to send to the country and the world?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Smoke weed, thrown in jail for much longer. Abuse your own child….a few months, suspended?!!!

    Don't you justoveho laws are made to minipulated and skewed to the point where the victim and the law abiding citizen is left shortchanged at the end of the day?

  17. noname says:

    Dirty ole fecker, should be shame of himself. NAStY .