Wednesday is the day that jurors will decide the fate of parliamentarian Neil Gabriel Rowe who has been on trial since April 7, accused of raping a fellow party member.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
The prosecutor and defence counsel both addressed the five-woman, four-man jury in the No 5 Supreme Court on Monday, pointing out why they should vote in their favour, and it is now down to Justice Pamela Beckles to sum up the evidence.
Rowe, 45, of Kingsland Terrace, Christ Church and the Barbados Labour Party Member of Parliament for St Michael North West, has pleaded not guilty to having sexual intercourse with the woman on September 18, 2022 at his home without her consent or was reckless as to whether she consented.
The matter was called at 1:10 p.m. and ran until 4:05 p.m. on Monday. The late start was due to the court accommodating lead defence attorney King’s Counsel Michael Lashley, who is involved in a murder trial in the neighbouring No.3 Supreme Court.
Prosecutor Principal State Counsel Olivia Davis, in her 71-minute address, said the former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly presented a rambling story from the dock and the most the defence could attempt to come up with was that the woman was dancing vulgarly on Rowe hours prior to the assault, but this had nothing to do with consent.
“He presents himself as someone with selfcontrol and the virtual complainant as loose and knocks herself about,” Davis stated.
Meanwhile, the defence team said that of the two, Rowe was most cooperative with the police, providing a sample of his blood for testing while the woman refused to release the tests done by her doctor and to get an examination.
In his 87-minute address, Lashley insisted there was no medical evidence that was crucial to such a case, and the lack of DNA evidence was the nail
in the prosecution’s coffin.
“Crying proves nothing,” he told the jury as he recounted the evidence in the case, particularly the alleged victim, adding that she would win an Emmy Award.
Justice Beckles is expected to give her summation tomorrow, leaving the jury to deliberate in order to reach a verdict.
Prosecutor Davis stated: “We are here because of what the virtual complainant remembers. The virtual complainant’s word and the evidence are enough to substantiate this offence if you believe her. In this case, you have three or four recent complaints . . . and one is an expert. I cannot think of a better recent complaint than a psychologist.”
Experienced
She said Rowe was an experienced man in his 40s with three children, yet stated that he bathed a woman and put her to sleep in a bed but did not touch her. The case, she added, had some features of acquaintance rape, a situation where a person may think they know someone based on a number of things, including looks, but it is only after interaction with them then one truly knows them.
Among 15 questions he left with the jury, Lashley asked them if they could find the accused guilty without medical evidence that was barred from the police; whether a woman who felt uneasy a week before would leave a fete with the same man; if a guilty man would volunteer his blood sample; why did the man sexually assaulting her not cover her mouth in a house with others, and where was the DNA in the case.
Lashley is appearing in association with attorneys Safiya Moore, Sade Harris and Johnelle King. (AC)