Rapist seeks to overturn “perverse” verdicts, “excessive” sentence

Sentenced back in 2016 to 25 years in prison for sodomising and orally penetrating a 17-year-old girl against her will, Paul Abrams has filed an appeal, arguing that the verdicts returned by the jury were “perverse”, and that his sentence is “excessive”.

Led by Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, the Guyana Court of Appeal on Wednesday heard arguments in this matter. Abrams is being represented by lawyers Nigel Hughes and Kiswana Jefford, while Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Dionne McCammon appears for the State.
Abrams, according to Hughes, was tried by a jury for buggery, indecent assault (oral penetration), and rape (vaginal penetration) committed on the teenage girl without her consent. The incident occurred on December 5, 2007 in Demerara.
While the jurors found Abrams guilty of buggery and indecent assault, for which he was sentenced to 25 and four years’ imprisonment respectively by Justice Jo-Ann Barlow, they found him not guilty on the latter charge. The sentences will run concurrently.

Factual background
It was the prosecution’s case that Abrams, a supervisor at the time, had lured the girl to a room at their workplace, where he proceeded to rape and sodomise her.
He reportedly then locked her away in the room, and returned with another man, Holston Melville, who also raped and sodomised her. After some time had elapsed, they reportedly left the room, locking the teenager inside. It was then another man, Claude Craig, reportedly entered and sodomised the teen.
Melville and Craig had been charged along with Abrams for sexually abusing the girl. Melville was found not guilty on all charges by a jury back in 2016. Craig, on the other hand, was found not guilty of buggery but guilty of indecent assault, and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

Verdicts perverse
In his opening arguments, Hughes pointed the Appeal Court judges to the chronology of the events as related by the victim in the record of appeal. He said the victim related that she was firstly orally penetrated, secondly anally penetrated, and thirdly penetrated vaginally.
But for the jury to acquit Abrams of rape, Hughes argued, this series of activities would mean that the girl did not consent to have oral and anal sex, but “apparently” consented to have vaginal sex with his client.
At this point, Justice Cummings-Edwards told Hughes that this does not mean that the jury cannot say which aspects of the activities they accept.
“If somebody says, ‘The first time you hit me and beat me up I didn’t consent. The second time you hit me and beat me up I didn’t consent, but the third time you hit me and beat me up I consented’, and they say, ‘Yes, you consented to the third time’, I would respectfully submit that – especially if it is accompanied by injuries – that is a perverse verdict…,” the lawyer contended.
He continued, “This means she would have had to say no to the first activity (oral penetration)…she would have had to endure the anal penetration, and after all of those, what one would only assume were traumatic occasions, have consented in that state to the third type of activity (vaginal penetration) which was the traditional means of relations between a man and a woman.”
As such, Hughes insisted that the verdicts must, in and of themselves, be perverse, because it is not open to the jury to find a different sequence in the activities if it is not disclosed in the evidence.
The lawyer went on to reason that if the evidence said that the sequence of activities was “reversed” — if she had consented first to be vaginally penetrated, and then the other two types of sexual activities took place, then the verdict would not be perverse.
“What if the jury found that third activity did not take place? They believed that the first two activities took place but the third activity did not, hence their verdict?” the Chancellor asked. Despite this, Hughes argued that the issue of perversity remains.
“…I don’t think it would remove the question of perversity. Because the jury would have had to believe that one and two activities took place, both of which were denied by the [appellant], and then the third activity, which was also denied, did not take place. Then there was no evidence to suggest that either one and two alone took place, or that none of them took place.”
Justice Cummings-Edwards, however, reminded counsel that it was open for the jury to find that nothing took place, or two or three activities took place. To this end, she told Hughes that his argument that the verdict is perverse “might need some qualification”.

Sentence excessive
On the issue of sentencing, Hughes contended that the prison sentence imposed on his client is excessive and not in keeping with sentencing guidelines established by the nation’s highest court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
He particularly relied on the methodology adopted by the CCJ in the cases of Linton Pompey v the Director of Public Prosecutions of Guyana, and Calvin Ramcharran v the Director of Public Prosecutions of Guyana, in which the baseline for sexual offences, according to him, would have been 15 years in prison.

Justified
For her part, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Dionne McCammon, submitted that the sentences imposed on Abrams are appropriate, and can be justified. While the prosecutor said she was cognisant of the case laws highlighted by Abrams’s lawyer, she noted that those cases predate the case at bar.
Given the nature of the offences, the aggravating factors, including the fact that the victim was assaulted during the commission of the offences which took place at her place of employment, McCammon said, the sentences are neither excessive nor wrong in principle.
Moreover, the prosecutor rejected Hughes’s contention that the verdicts were perverse. McCammon said that no one knows why the jury returned a not-guilty verdict for rape. “Not guilty does not mean that the virtual complainant consented… we don’t know why the jury said not guilty to that offence,” she said, while adding that she is relying on the sequence of events as stated by the victim.

Serious offences
The Chancellor underscored that when it comes to sentencing, each case would turn on its own particular facts, because “there is no one-size-fits-all in these kinds of cases.” While noting that these are serious offences, she said it is her view that the trial judge is best suited to impose sentence, having seen and heard the witnesses. Justice Cummings-Edwards nevertheless said the court hopes to see justice done at the end of the day, both for the victim and appellant.
Besides the Chancellor, Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud comprised the bench. The Appellate Court has reserved its ruling in this matter.