Monetary compensation is not the “appropriate remedy” in most rape cases, says Justice Pamela Beckles, but it can be useful depending on the circumstances.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
“The objective of awarding compensation is, therefore, to provide financial assistance to the victim and should not be negatively interpreted as putting a price on the victim’s dignity,” she stressed.
“This court acknowledges that no amount of monetary compensation can take away the emotional pain and horrors associated with the rape, neither can it undo the harm that has been caused. It can, however, be used on the rehabilitation of the victim, that is, to assist with any counselling or educational needs or whatsoever may be needed to aid the victim to move on from the experience.”
The judge was speaking as she ordered a then 16-year-old boy, who confessed to the 2010 statutory rape of a then 12-year-old girl, to pay $25 000 in compensation when he reappeared in the No 3 Supreme Court yesterday.
“The issue of monetary compensation has been raised in this matter and whereas the court recognises that monetary compensation is not the appropriate remedy in most rape cases, depending on the particular circumstances in some cases, it can be useful,” Justice Beckles explained.
The now 31-yearold man had pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with the girl who was under the age of 14 – 12 years – and who was not his spouse on April 5, 2010.
The judge noted the maximum punishment was life in prison and this showed the seriousness of the offence.
She told the offender that sexual assaults on young children must be severely punished and “those who engage in this evil conduct should expect to go to prison for a long period of time, not only to punish them, but also as an endeavour to deter others who might have similar intentions”.
Justice Beckles said the young age of the offender and the 15-year length of delay in the matter, however, raised questions in relation to the appropriate sentence to be imposed.
She noted she had therefore considered the nature and gravity of the offence; the prevalence of such offences in society; the tender age of the complainant; the degree of force used; the effect the offence has had on the complainant’s life, and her possible exposure to sexually transmitted diseases.
She also considered the offender’s guilty plea and heartfelt apology to the girl and the 15-year delay.
As a result, the judge determined that a starting sentence of 12 years was appropriate.
She then reduced it by four years to eight years, deducted onethird for his guilty plea, as well as the eight days he spent on remand.
“Having had the opportunity to fully ventilate the issues raised in this matter with the parties and after listening attentively to their concerns, l have explored other options besides a custodial sentence for this,” Justice Beckles said.
In the end, she ordered the man to $25 000 in compensation to the complainant, of which $10 000 was forthwith.
Of the remaining $ 15 000, $5 000 must be paid by December 19, and $10 000 by March 27 next year. If the offender does not pay up, he will spend five years, 115 days in prison in default.