Arguing among other things that High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall admitted prejudicial evidence during his trial for the rape of an underage girl, Michael Abrams, aged in his 60s, is appealing both his convictions and two life sentences.
The first count of rape, for which Abrams was found guilty, occurred at some time between January 1 and 18, 2016, and the second incident was committed on January 19, 2016. The jury’s verdicts on both charges were unanimous. He was sentenced to life in prison on both counts.
Convicted child rapist: Michael Abrams
The prejudicial evidence has to do with the prosecution introducing evidence during the trial concerning a sexual offence Abrams allegedly committed on the victim’s mother, his Attorney-at-Law Glen Hanoman submitted to the Court of Appeal last Thursday, the first day of arguments.
While alluding to the Sexual Offences Act which he said allows for the introduction of evidence concerning previous convictions, he said the evidence advanced by the prosecution was a mere allegation, and as such, amounts to hearsay evidence which is not permitted under the Act.
He argued that the prosecution “tried so hard” to introduce this evidence to prejudice the jury, resulting in a “real injustice” to his client. Another ground of appeal put forward by Abrams’s lawyer is in relation to a “highly improper” question the trial Judge had asked a defence witness.
As the witness testified under oath, Hanoman said she was asked by Justice Morris-Ramlall, “Were you there when the sexual offences were committed?”
This question, the defence counsel pointed out, was framed as though it was a given fact that the sexual offences were indeed committed by his client.
The lawyer added, “It was clear that the Judge was telling the jury that these things took place and that the witness could not be present when the sexual offences took place. A question like this coming from the trial Judge, he argued, was “highly improper”.
After perusing the record of appeal, Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, however, indicated that she is of the view that the trial Judge asked that question to clarify from the witness, whether she was present when the crimes happened.
Further arguments in this appeal will continue on August 15 when Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Natasha Backer is expected to respond to the convict’s arguments. Dawn Gregory-Barnes and Rishi Persaud are the other Judges hearing this matter.
Abrams, who had previously described himself as a “devoted Catholic”, is contending that the verdicts are unreasonable and the prison terms are manifestly excessive.
He argues, inter alia, that the trial Judge failed to adequately put his defence to the jury, and this has amounted to a grave miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances, he is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside both his sentences and convictions.
During trial proceedings, which were held in-camera, the court had heard the testimony of Abrams inserting his finger into the six-year-old girl’s vagina, and also sodomising her. High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall had admonished Abrams for his wrongdoings, telling him, “You say you are a devoted Catholic, I hope you pray to God and ask forgiveness.”
Following the guilty verdicts, Abrams had said that even though the jury “in their wisdom” had found him guilty, he is maintaining his innocence.
“This situation makes me feel sad. I felt like the accused [Abrams] would try to hurt me,” the rape survivor had expressed in a victim impact statement.
For her part, the State Prosecutor had urged the court to impose the maximum sentence on Abrams, and, in so doing, had pointed out that the rape convict had abused his position of trust, and had violated the child in the worst possible way, shattering her innocence.
From the evidence, Justice Morris-Ramlall had said, it was evident that the young girl had loved Abrams. The Judge had said that Abrams “pretended” to love her, and treated her “like a beast.”
In sentencing the child rapist, the Judge took into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the circumstances surrounding the case. In the end, she sentenced him to serve life imprisonment on each of the two counts. The sentences will run concurrently, and he becomes eligible for parole after severing 35 years.
