Convicted child rapist moves to CCJ to overturn life sentences

…as CCJ to hold sittings in Guyana

Micah Williams, the child rapist whose appeal against his conviction and life sentences was completely rejected by the Court of Appeal (CoA), has now moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the regional court will hear his matter during its itinerant sittings in Guyana next month.
The CCJ will hold sittings in Guyana from June 21 to 22 at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), Liliendaal, Greater Georgetown. During this time, it will hear two cases from Guyana, another two from Barbados, and one from Dominica.

In December of last year, the local appellate court dismissed Williams’s appeal on finding that his convictions were safe and that the trial Judge properly exercised her sentencing discretion.
According to information disclosed in court, 38-year-old Williams engaged in sexual penetration with the minor between January 1 and December 31, 2016, and then again on January 6, 2017, at a location in Linden, Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice).
He sexually penetrated the child both vaginally and anally. He was found unanimously guilty on the two counts after a trial before Justice Jo Ann Barlow at the Demerara High Court in April 2018.
In the end, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the two charges, with the Judge ordering that the jail terms be served concurrently. He becomes eligible for parole after 20 years.
Williams, a former trade unionist, in his Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeal, had contended that, among other things, the trial Judge did not fairly put his defence to the jury.
In this regard, he had submitted that this was more of a “narrow issue”, that had to do with the victim being “prompted” to respond to questions while she was testifying.
Despite the jury’s verdict, he had argued that he was not the one who had abused the girl and had claimed that it was a 14-year-old boy. To this end, he had argued that two persons had “guided” the girl to implicate him, to cover up for the boy who had actually committed the crime.
Williams’s lawyers, Nigel Hughes and Ronald Daniels, had further submitted that the sentences were manifestly excessive and not in keeping with established sentencing guidelines.
In dismissing Williams’s appeal, the CoA led by Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards held that the trial Judge had analysed the strengths and weaknesses of the case and had asked the jury to determine whether they were satisfied that he committed the crimes.
The convict’s ground of appeal that his defence was not sufficiently put to the jury was rejected as the appellate court ruled that it was satisfied that his defence was adequately put.
His appeal against his sentence was also dismissed.
According to the CoA, sentencing is at the discretion of the trial Judge, who in this case, considered all the necessary factors before imposing the sentences.
These included Williams’s age at the time of the commissioning of the offence, his background, him being a first-time offender, and the serious nature and prevalence of the offence.
In light of this, the CoA had said that it would not interfere with a sentence unless it was wrong in principle which was not so in this case.
During the hearing of the appeal, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Natasha Backer had argued that the trial Judge “more than sufficiently” put Williams’s defence to the jury.
While referring to aspects of the records of appeal, Backer had pointed out, “Here, the Judge would have reminded the jury about the alleged conspiracy that [Williams] was relying on as the crux of his defence. The trial Judge reminded the jury of [Williams’s] insistence that it was not he who would have committed the acts in question.”
Meanwhile, in reacting to the jury’s verdicts in the High Court, Williams had called them “strange”, while professing his innocence. “I find it strange this would be the position of the jury,” the convict had said as he described that day as the most terrifying day of his life.
In her sentencing remarks, Justice Barlow had reprimanded an unremorseful Williams, whom she had called out for shifting the blame on the teenage boy.
While telling the convict he could not play ignorant to the evidence, Justice Barlow had highlighted the severe damage the abuse had caused to the young girl’s body.
She had told Williams that although he fought for the rights of workers, he had violated the trust the child had in him. Williams was ordered to subject himself to counselling for sex offenders. (G1)