Judge Upholds – By Latrishka Thomas
Judge Upholds Case Submission
A man charged with having sex with a woman who the prosecution believes to be “mentally subnormal” has been freed after Justice Rajiv Persaud upheld a no-case submission, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a key ingredient of the charge.
Defense attorney Sherfield Bowen had argued at the close of the prosecution’s case that there was no evidence that established the complainant was mentally subnormal.
The law defines mental subnormality as “a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind”. This includes persons with a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning. With that, the prosecution argued that it was not necessary for the complainant to be specifically diagnosed as mentally subnormal.
However, Justice Persaud disagreed, ruling that the question of whether the complainant meets the legal definition of mental subnormality is a matter for expert evidence. He said he was reluctant to leave such a determination to the jury, noting that the jury does not know “everything on everything”, and that a qualified expert was needed to give an opinion on mental subnormality specifically.
In delivering his ruling, Justice Persaud questioned whether the evidence before the court established “arrested development of the mind” as required by law. He said while there was an “amalgam of evidence” about the complainant’s mental child-likeness from her mother, a teacher, and an educational assessment expert, no witness had given “overt” evidence establishing that she suffers from mental subnormality as defined under the law.
The judge further questioned whether the amalgam of evidence from the three witnesses was sufficient to meet the legal standard. He raised concerns about whether every case of impairment of social functioning is enough to meet the definition, and questioned how much impairment is significant enough to constitute mental subnormality.
Justice Persaud emphasized that it cannot be left up to the jury to determine what constitutes significant impairment without proper expert guidance on the specific legal definition of mental subnormality.
The court said it was not inclined to direct the jury to return a verdict based on the evidence presented, and the no-case submission was upheld.
The jury was directed to return a not guilty verdict, however the prosecution has stated its intention to appeal the ruling.
The trial, which began before Justice Persaud early last week, centred on an alleged offense that occurred in 2022.
During the trial, the complainant’s mother testified that the accused became a regular visitor to their home in late 2021, often coming for meals. She said the alleged incident occurred when she unintentionally fell asleep after eating a meal prepared by the accused, leaving him and her daughter watching television. The mother testified she had attended a funeral that day and that falling asleep with a man present in her home was highly unusual.
The mother told the court the complainant requires constant supervision, did not learn to walk until she was seven or eight years old, was not toilet-trained before she was six, has difficulty speaking and communicates primarily through gestures.
The mother testified she was not aware that the accused and her daughter were in communication. however, she recalled one occasion when she asked the accused to buy a drink for her, but he instead brought one for her daughter. She said she noticed something in the way they looked at each other, after which the accused told her “is your daughter I love”, and insisted that the daughter “is a big woman who can marry, have kids and have sex”, despite the mother’s objections.
A teacher also testified to having taught the complainant at a special needs school until she was 20 years old.
An educational assessment expert, who has conducted over 600 assessments since 2011, also testified that the complainant has the cognitive abilities of a four to five-year-old child.
She added that during her assessment, the complainant was unable to answer any questions, had a very awkward gait, and experienced difficulty with general movements. International standardized tests were used, and some could not be completed because the complainant was not able to write or speak.
DNA evidence presented during the trial established with over 99.9 percent probability that the accused is the biological father of the complainant’s stillborn baby.
