FACTS ONLY
02-28-08, - 02:55 AM
By ARTESIA DAVIS, Guardian Senior Reporter, artesia@nasguard.com
A man who committed a vicious sexual assault on a six-year-old will not be flogged for the crime because the punishment is unconstitutional, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
This means that Andrew Bridgewater has been spared the 10 lashes of the cat-o'-nine-tails that the sentencing judge imposed. However, his seven-year sentence stands.
Court of Appeal President Dame Joan Sawyer said that the assault that left the child in hospital for three weeks "was the worst of its kind" that she had seen in her 20 years on the Bench.
Bridgewater pleaded guilty to the attack. His lawyer, Wayne Watson, appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive. He said the imposition of the flogging would amount to cruel and inhumane punishment.
Justices of Appeal Emmanuel Osadebay and Milton Ganpatsingh agreed with Dame Joan that the seven-year sentence - the maximum that can be imposed for a first conviction - was appropriate despite Bridgewater's admission which spared the trauma of reliving the incident at trial.
Dame Joan said: "While a plea of guilty in such a case should normally result in some reduction from what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence, in this case, the fact that the appellant is a person who had no previous convictions of a similar nature could only be of minor relevance."
She continued, "The injuries to the young girl; the breach of trust which she and her caregiver reposed in the appellant; the fact that he admitted looking at her as a sexual object from watching her dance some time before the date of the attack on her, and then going on to fulfill that desire; the fact that she may never be able to have a normal relationship with a member of the opposite gender because of the physical, mental and psychological damage to her makes this offense one that should receive severe punishment. However, such punishment must be in accordance with the law."
The Court also pointed out that prior to the 1973 Constitution, there was no provision in the Penal Code that allowed flogging for sexual offenses or rape. As a result, the Court found that the current law that approves the use of corporal punishment for sex offenders was in conflict with the constitution.
Bernard Turner, the director of public prosecutions, said the judgment highlighted deficiencies in the legislation that needed to be addressed. The Crown had initially filed a cross-appeal in an attempt to have the sentence increased. But Turner withdrew the appeal.
I hope they BUGGER his azz in jail.:sparky: ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT!!
A man who committed a vicious sexual assault on a six-year-old will not be flogged for the crime because the punishment is unconstitutional, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
This means that Andrew Bridgewater has been spared the 10 lashes of the cat-o'-nine-tails that the sentencing judge imposed. However, his seven-year sentence stands.
Court of Appeal President Dame Joan Sawyer said that the assault that left the child in hospital for three weeks "was the worst of its kind" that she had seen in her 20 years on the Bench.
Bridgewater pleaded guilty to the attack. His lawyer, Wayne Watson, appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive. He said the imposition of the flogging would amount to cruel and inhumane punishment.
Justices of Appeal Emmanuel Osadebay and Milton Ganpatsingh agreed with Dame Joan that the seven-year sentence - the maximum that can be imposed for a first conviction - was appropriate despite Bridgewater's admission which spared the trauma of reliving the incident at trial.
Dame Joan said: "While a plea of guilty in such a case should normally result in some reduction from what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence, in this case, the fact that the appellant is a person who had no previous convictions of a similar nature could only be of minor relevance."
She continued, "The injuries to the young girl; the breach of trust which she and her caregiver reposed in the appellant; the fact that he admitted looking at her as a sexual object from watching her dance some time before the date of the attack on her, and then going on to fulfill that desire; the fact that she may never be able to have a normal relationship with a member of the opposite gender because of the physical, mental and psychological damage to her makes this offense one that should receive severe punishment. However, such punishment must be in accordance with the law."
The Court also pointed out that prior to the 1973 Constitution, there was no provision in the Penal Code that allowed flogging for sexual offenses or rape. As a result, the Court found that the current law that approves the use of corporal punishment for sex offenders was in conflict with the constitution.
Bernard Turner, the director of public prosecutions, said the judgment highlighted deficiencies in the legislation that needed to be addressed. The Crown had initially filed a cross-appeal in an attempt to have the sentence increased. But Turner withdrew the appeal.
I hope they BUGGER his azz in jail.:sparky: ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT!!