A firestorm of indignation has broken out in Guyana over accusations that a named teacher of The Bishops’ High School (BHS), over the last decade, has been grooming female students who were in his classes at the institution, and then engaging in sexual activity with them once they attained the age of consent, which in Guyana, is 18 years. It is also claimed that the teacher had engaged in the same pattern of abuse during stints at four other high schools.
The individual has denied the “grooming” accusations, but conceded he has dated two ex-students after their graduation and, in fact, is in a relationship with one presently. However, while the matter was being ventilated over social media, several other students came forward to substantiate the accusations of his “sexualisation” of lessons and befriending female students who may have had personal issues and which he exploited under the cover of “helping” them with these issues and also on the subjects they were being taught.
While the phenomenon of “grooming” children for sexual activity cannot be new, it has become prominent over the last decade because of the increased opportunities occasioned by the anonymity combined with connectivity of the Internet. While it was on the radar of international agencies concerned with its linkage with human trafficking for decades, of recent, most jurisdictions have moved to introduce legislation to deal with the grooming activities from a standpoint of violating the rights of children by persons in positions of trust.
In Guyana, Act 7 of 2010 amended by Act 2 of 2013, bolstered the SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, CHAPTER 8:03 by including the act of grooming of children for sexual activity. Even though the section has not been utilised for prosecution as yet, the act of grooming has been well-analysed in other jurisdictions. From scrutinising one such model, one can envisage a carefully calculated programme which is designed to lure the child into a state of mind in which they become a willing partner in the sex abuse.
In the first stage, the victim is targeted by the sexual predator who would “size up” the child’s vulnerabilities such as lack of self-confidence and emotional deprivation or needs. It was alleged in the present instance, the teacher, in addition to being able to observe the targets in the classroom, also had access to their personal files. The second step is to gain the victim’s trust and this is done by the predator using the information gathered on the child’s needs and calculatedly showing that “he cares”.
In the next step, once the victim’s needs are satisfied, and more attention is given, along with gifts, etc, the groomer becomes more important in the eyes of the victim. The fourth step of “isolating the child” is now easily accomplished by teachers when they give “one-on-one” coaching in “extra lessons”. Even parents may approve of this extra attention from the teacher, since their child is supposed to benefit.
At this point, the relationship will now be explicitly sexualised gradually by increasingly explicit actions such as displays of nude pictures, etc, and ending with sexual acts that the child is encouraged to see as ‘exciting”. The last stage is to maintain control, through secrecy, shame and, of course, the gifts that would be missed. Eventually, it is generally the predator who will move on to a new, younger victim.
In Guyana, for prosecution in the instant case, our Act requires that the “person who is in a position of trust in an educational institution” must have “engage(d) in penetrative sex with a child under the age of 18”. The teacher must have been very familiar with the law since evidently, he did not proceed to the sexual activity stage until the students passed the age of 18.
However, if the other evidence can be verified, the carefully plotting and execution of the violations of these children are even more reprehensible. The spirit of the law must take its course.
