Craig Williams, the former cop assigned to the Protective Services Division who was sentenced to 15 years behind bars at hard labour in 2021, after being convicted for the rape and abduction of a runaway St Thomas teen in 2012, has lost his appeal against that conviction.

Williams was convicted by a judge sitting without a jury in the High Court Division of the Gun Court in Morant Bay, St Thomas, for the offences of illegal possession of firearm (count one); forcible abduction (count two); and rape (count 3) in October 2021. On November 15, 2021, he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for illegal possession of firearm, five years’ imprisonment for forcible abduction, and 15 years at hard labour for rape, with a stipulation that he serve 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and his name was directed to be entered on the Sex Offender Registry.

Distressed by the outcome of his trial, Williams filed an application for leave to appeal both conviction and sentence on the ground that the decision of the trial judge was against the weight of the evidence. He argued that there were deficiencies in the summation of the judge, and that the judge failed to analyse conflicts in the evidence of the child which weighed against her credibility.

The Appeal Court, in ruling on the matter which was heard on February 10 and 13 this year, said while the summation of the judge left “much to be desired” and was “deficient”, he “demonstrated that he understood the essential ingredients for the various offences for which the applicant was tried [and] also effectively showed that he was mindful of the general directions that should guide his consideration of the case as a trial judge sitting without a jury”.

“Although his treatment of the evidence lacked detailed analysis, his narration was thorough. It is therefore clear that he was familiar with the full case presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The learned trial judge also correctly identified credibility as the central issue in the case, specifically the question of who was speaking the truth regarding whether the sexual intercourse was consensual,” the judges of the appeal said.

Furthermore, they said Williams’ silence in his unsworn statement in the face of the teen’s denial under cross-examination that the sex was consensual and that she was not abducted forcibly or the manner in which his firearm was used, was telling.

Said the judges: “In the face of the complainant’s denials and the applicant’s silence on these crucial matters, it cannot be said that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence or that it was unreasonable. It is our view that the complainant gave clear, consistent, and detailed evidence and was not materially shaken in cross-examination. The learned trial judge regarded her as a truthful and credible witness, which was a conclusion open to him.

“It is our view that the weight of the evidence supports the applicant’s convictions. There was ample evidence on which the learned trial judge could properly conclude that the applicant was guilty of each of the offences for which he stood trial.

“In conclusion, given the state of the evidence, we find no basis in law to disturb the convictions. The evidence supports the verdicts, and no substantial miscarriage of justice arose from the deficiencies identified in the learned trial judge’s summation,” the judges said further.

They also noted that while Williams had advanced no ground of appeal challenging the sentences “there is no basis on which it could be contended that the sentences are manifestly excessive”.

“Accordingly, we make the following order: The application for permission to appeal is refused, the sentences are to be reckoned as having commenced on 15 November 2021, the date they were imposed and are to run concurrently as ordered by the learned trial judge,” the Appeal Court judges ruled.

The essence of the prosecution’s case was that on the night of December 29, 2012, the 17-year-old complainant was walking along Yallahs main road, after midnight, when Williams approached her in a vehicle. He asked what she was doing on the road at that time of night, and after she explained that her aunt had put her out, he showed her a police identification card to, according to her, confirm that he was a police officer. She entered the vehicle because he told her that he would take her to the police station.

According to the teen, she sat in the front of the vehicle, and Williams drove off. She said that she told him that she had been raped earlier in the night; however, when they reached the Yallahs courthouse, he did not stop, even though she told him to stop, showing him where she was going. According to the child, the cop continued speeding and drove for about half an hour, to an hour, away from the courthouse, and then stopped on the road by a track where he started to question her.

She said when she asked him to take her to the police station he said he could not do that and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. The teen, who said she was by this time in tears, told Williams to take her to the station or let her walk home. However, he pulled off the road and drove down into a track, which she described as bushy and without lights, and came to a stop.

She said while there, a police vehicle passed along the road and stopped but Williams exited the car, took his identification card, and approached them. The teen said at that time she attempted to open the door, but it was locked and, though she tried to signal to the other cops from inside the vehicle, they could not see or hear her.

She said when they left, Williams returned to the car and told her he had informed them that he was with his “catty”. She said the cop again asked her for sex, and when she refused, he drew his firearm and continued pressuring her. When she again refused, he threatened to shoot her at gunpoint. She said the upset cop instructed her to remove her shorts and underwear, which she did out of fear, after which he placed the gun on the floor of the car near the brakes, moved to her side of the vehicle, reclined her seat, and had intercourse with her.

She said after the assault, he held her at gunpoint and demanded her phone number before taking her to a bus stop where he gave her $100 for transportation. The child said the following day she received a call from a private number and recognised the voice of the cop.

Call-trace data confirmed that the cop had called the child as she reported. During the trial, Williams denied the accusations. He admitted he had picked her up and told her he was a cop, but said he did not draw or use the firearm against her and claimed that the sexual intercourse between them was entirely consensual.

During the appeal, Williams’ attorney argued that the trial judge failed to consider the evidence of a witness regarding the locking and window mechanisms, and consequently misdirected himself in evaluating the teen’s credibility. He said if the trial judge had properly examined the evidence of both defence witnesses which, he said, contradicted the child’s account, the judge would have formed a different view of her credibility. The attorney said this failure resulted in a wrongful conviction.