Ritz masseur released from indecent assault charge

| 03/04/2014

Ritz Carlton Grand Cayman(CNS): A Jamaican national who was working at the luxury spa facility at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman walked away from court last Friday a free man with his name finally cleared after a complainant failed to turn up for the trial for the second time. Damian Dwayne Henry pleaded not guilty to charges of indecent assault last August in relation to an alleged incident in February but the chief justice released Henry last Friday when he refused the crown’s application to adjourn the case for a third attempt when his accuser, who was visiting Cayman at the time of the alleged assault, had not shown up. Given Henry’s position, the charges hanging over his head were even more serious and had prevented him from working in his chosen profession.

Chief Justice Anthony Smellie made it clear that having made such serious allegations, the complainant had an obligation to appear in person but she had shown very little interest in attending or giving the court any idea of when she may be able to attend in the future.

The woman, the court heard, is a vet who lives in Missouri and had told the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that her work commitments prevented her from attending in December ahead of the first trial and the court agreed to an adjournment despite the eleventh hour application. 

The public purse had to bear the costs of Henry’s travel bill because the crown had left it so late to check their witness’s availability, even though the trial date was set in August. Justice Charles Quin, however, had warned that the crown would not get another chance when he reset the trial for March.

When the witness failed to show again, the case was adjourned for one day so the crown could make contact but the complainant again cited work issues as preventing her attendance. The crown applied for another adjournment, even though the complainant had not responded to the court’s requests for a date when she may be able to come, but the judge declined the application.

He said that she had shown a “remarkable lack of interest” in the case when it would have been expected that with such a serious allegation she would have shown a keen interest as he discharged Henry.

Related article on CNS:


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

About the Author ()

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Trutsaya says:

    Me thinks someone was looking to win a criminal case and then sue the Ritz franchise in the US to collect a handsome payday.

    What a coward to make a claim and not do your part in pursuing the your charge.

    • Jah Dread says:

      The big big bamboo bamboo oh lalalalalaala working for the Yankee dollaaaaar.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Now the CROWN needs to sue her to get back the monies spent on entertaining her claim..waste of time! foreigners should get their own legal representation and now have the CROWN deal with these issues!

  3. Anonymous says:

    glad the masseur had a happy ending for once…..

  4. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately in his line of work the damage has alrady been done. False accusations can easily ruin someones life even if they are proven to be innocent..

  5. Just Sayin'.... says:

    Hopefully the lady who filed the complaint but couldn't be bothered to follow through with this case will be barred from ever entering Cayman again as a result of the waste of time and money incurred.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Forgive me for my lack of knowledge of the law, but why is the Crown/DPP aparty in this case? Wouldn't this be a lawsuit involving the accuser vs. the accused?

    • Anonymous says:

      It's not a lawsuit, it's a criminal case and he would have faced jail time if convicted. 

    • Anonymous says:

      10:33, it's a criminal court matter, he was being accused of indecent assualt, hence threbeing a prosecutor.

      He should take her ass to civil court now and sue the living sh*t ou of her fo ruining his life.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well there is this thing called the criminal law and another thing called the civil law and the difference between them is…. Aw shucks if you really are so dumb as to as this question then it is all going to go over your head anyway. 

    • Anonymous says:

      This is a criminal case Dufus……why wouldn't the Crown/DPP be involved ????? Who else could prosecute this alleged crime ????

    • Anonymous says:

      You are thinking of a civil matter.  This was a criminal charge in which case the Crown brings the charges and tries the case.

    • Anonymous says:

      It was a prosecution.

    • Anonymous says:

      Indecent assault is a crime and all crimes are technically against "the state", which is why "the Crown" prosecutes them through the DPP.

      A criminal prosecution can proceed even if the victim of the alleged crime doesn't show up or doesn't want it to (it would be the same for burglary, attempted murder, assault and anything that is in the penal code), but in some cases – sexual offences in particular – the main evidence is the testimony of the victim. If that person doesn't show up the case falls apart because the accused has a right to a fair trial, which includes facing his or her accuser. If there was no forensic evidence, witnesses, etc the DPP wouldn't have enough to go on. So it's not that the woman who alleged that she was indecently assaulted was the one bringing the charge, she was just probably very central to the DPP's case.

      Oftentimes victims of crimes can also bring civil claims that are treated differently than crimes in terms of standard of proof (balance of probabilities vs beyond a reasonable doubt), what type of evidence can be admitted, etc. That is where it would be a lawsuit involving the accuser vs. the accused. For example, a civil claim is how OJ Simpson was found to be responsible for Nicole Brown-Simpson's murder and had to pay her family compensation even though he has been acquitted on the criminal charge of murder that was brought by the state.