A 40 plus-year-old St Andrew man who was in 2019 sentenced to 15 years behind bars for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl on several occasions while she visited her friend’s house on play dates had his sentence adjusted downwards following an appeal.

The man, who was tried and convicted by a judge and jury in the Home Circuit Court for grievous sexual assault, buggery, and sexual touching, had been slapped with the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for the offence of grievous sexual assault and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in respect of each of the other two offences.

All the sentences were to run concurrently making it so that he was to have spent the 15 years which is the longest of the three.

The sentencing judge, however, issued the convicted man with a certificate pursuant to section 42K of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act (CJAA) in relation to the mandatory minimum sentence, stating as reasons that he had spent 34 months in custody and that the sentence seemed excessive, having regard to the evidence given on the nature of the grievous sexual assault (notwithstanding the age of the complainant).

According to information contained in the summation of the trial judge, the then 11-year-old girl, who lived with her parents, was in the habit of visiting her friend, an older girl whose family lived across the road from her, where they would play together in the girl’s room. The convicted man lived in a separate house on the same premises.

According to the evidence, during her visits to that house on several days in July 2016, the man would call the 11-year-old from her friend’s room and take her to his room where he would assault her.

At the end of each encounter the child would return to her friend’s room and resume play. She made no complaints about the incidents until her mother, on one occasion, saw her leaving the man’s room and questioned her.

It was then that the child explained that she told no one of the incidents voluntarily because the man told her not to and “threatened” her.

During a subsequent medical examination a doctor found evidence of bruises in the region of her anus, which were consistent with infliction by a blunt object, such as a penis.

The accused man, during the trial, gave evidence denying the allegations or that he had threatened the child while testifying of his good character.

In his appeal, predicated on the certificate issued by the judge, the man further argued that the sentence of 15 years was manifestly excessive and unjust as there were no acts of violence committed by him towards the complainant during the act of grievous sexual assault.

Furthermore, his attorneys said, there was “no trauma and/or injuries sustained by the complainant when the appellant committed the act of grievous sexual assault” and that “it was not, based on decided cases within our jurisprudence, the worst case of grievous sexual assault”.

The Appeal Court, in an oral judgment in May, dismissed the man’s application to have his conviction overturned but allowed the appeal against his sentence in part.

“The sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment is set aside and a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment is substituted therefore. The appellant is to serve eight years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. The sentence is to be reckoned as having commenced on 17 May 2019,” the judges of the appeal court ruled.

In giving its conclusion following arguments from the defence and the Crown, the Appeal Court said, “This appeal concerned a challenge to appropriateness of the imposition of the prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years for grievous sexual assault. Having considered the matter in the round, we conclude that there was one compelling reason for the learned judge to issue a certificate to the appellant in respect of this offence (giving credit for time spent on remand).

“However, after undertaking the sentencing exercise, we disagreed with the learned judge that a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment should be imposed. The sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment will, however, be adjusted to reflect full credit for time spent on remand, in the manner intended by the learned judge.”