A 72-year-old St Catherine farmer who initially denied raping his three step-grandchildren — ages 6 to 11 — but recanted, was on Thursday handed an accumulated 60 years prison sentence for those crimes but will effectively spend only 10 years behind bars.

The man had been indicted for five counts of rape and two counts of sexual touching in relation to the three girls. Supreme Court judge Justice Bertram Morrison, in handing down the sentences in the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday, sentenced the man to 10 years on each of the five counts of rape and five years each on the two counts sexual touching. The sentences are to run concurrently however, making it so that the convict will spend the longest of the lot — 10 years — in prison.

According to details in records put before the court, the man, between 2018 and 2019, “on different occasions” raped his 11-year-old step-grandchild while she was at his house. In one instance he reportedly instructed the other children in the house to remain in one room while he took her to the living room, carried out the act, and cautioned her against telling anyone afterwards.

The child, who was diagnosed as “a slow learner”, reportedly said she hesitated to tell anyone about the assaults because she was “embarrassed” and afraid she would be punished. She, however, told of the rape after she was questioned by her mother.

In the other matter for which he was charged, the man, on two occasions between 2020 and 2021, fondled his six-year-old step-grandchild and also raped her twice on her grandmother’s bed while she was away at work.

He reportedly told the child not to tell anyone. The matter was reported after a family member of the mother noticed the child’s sensitivity while she was being showered and questioned her.

The other child, who was seven years of age, said she was preparing for school one morning and was about to put on her underwear when he accosted her and told her to lie down on the bed where he assaulted her. She said when she told the grandmother about the incident she confronted her husband and told him that, if he did it again she would call the police. The child, however, said her grandmother was not the one to report him.

According to the social enquiry report (SER) of the probation aftercare officer presented to the judge ahead of the sentencing, the man “initially denied committing the offences, lifting his hands in the air and professing an oath in the process” but “eventually recanted by indicating that he is accepting responsibility for committing the offences”.

As to whether he recognised the impact and consequences of his crimes on the victims and his community, the officer said the man claimed he was unsure how they were affected.

According to the man, while his parents separated when he was a child he was never subjected to any type of abuse nor witnessed any abuse of a sexual nature.

The father of seven claimed that he had a pleasant relationship with his wife, who has no children for him. However, the probation aftercare officer said “investigations suggested otherwise”.

Residents of the convicted man’s community, in expressing surprise when told of the offences, said he appeared to be “a nice family man” and was not seen as a troublemaker. Several said he should be shown mercy as he might have been “intoxicated” when he committed the acts.

Most of the residents, however, said they saw the matter as “extremely serious”, considering that the victims were children and members of his family and as such felt he should serve time.

One child who was interviewed in the presence of the grandmother said she felt sad about the situation and sometimes thinks about the different times she was abused, but asked that the court forgive him.

According to the probation aftercare officer, the grandmother, who is in her 50s, made the same request, pleading for the court to return her husband to the community.

The child’s parents, however, were adamant that he should serve time with the father emphasising that an “extremely long prison term should be given”.

The man, who the probation aftercare officer deemed as “high risk” to children and “low” risk to himself, had dropped out of school at the primary level and was found to be “numerate” but “not literate”.

The officer, in his assessment and recommendation, said the offender “at this geriatric stage of his life can hardly be categorised among the naïve and as such should have exercised better judgement”.

“The mentioned detail becomes further accentuated, taking into consideration his assertions that he was exposed to acceptable norms and values from his family and the Church,” the officer noted.

“Offender’s information is that he has not been exposed to sexual abuse and that he is not a substance misuser. Notwithstanding this enigma, it is vivid that some cognitive dissonance is at play,” he said.

The officer further noted that the “several counts outlined in the circumstances of offences” involving children known to the offender are “suggestive that a type is targeted and recidivism is on the horizon” for the man who has a previous conviction for fraud in 1998.

In the meantime, the probation aftercare officer, in pointing out that the man had pleaded guilty, making it so that the children were not subjected to a long trial process, said “there is already significant impact on them which may have been missed by the parents”.

“It is crucial to consider that the impact on child victims is not immediately and completely overt as the effects usually surface psychologically through prolonged sadness (depression) into adulthood, where it is usually quite destructive and often long-lasting, perhaps even a lifetime,” the officer pointed out.

He said that the man’s relation to the children and his age suggest that he was in a position of trust and that there was an expectation of protection rather than being preyed upon. As such, the probation officer recommended “a custodial sentence” so that “intense psychological aid can be implemented”.

The matter was prosecuted by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Malike Kellier, while defence attorney Franklin Halliburton represented the convicted man. The case was investigated by Detective Corporal Julian Martin-Findley.