The Queen v Kenneth Crafton Aka Baba [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Hariprashad-Charles J
• Judgment Date: 24 February 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] ECSC J0224-2
• Date: 24 February 2004
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 74 of 2003

[2004] ECSC J0224-2

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CRIMINAL)

CASE NO. 74 of 2003

Between:

The Queen

and

Kenneth Crafton Aka Baba

Appearances:

Mr. Leslie Mondesir, Crown Counsel for the Prosecution

Mr. Lorne Theophilus for the Accused

DECISION

Hariprashad-Charles J

1 The Accused, Kenneth Crafton also known as "Baba" was indicted by the Director of Public Prosecutions on four counts of sexual offences: two for unlawful carnal knowledge and two for indecency allegedly committed between April 15 ^th and May, 6 ^th 2002 at La Clery, near the City of Castries.

2 After two days of evidence, a mixed Jury found the Accused guilty on two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge under Section 215 of the Criminal Code of Saint Lucia. He is before the Court for sentencing.

The facts of the Case

3 The facts of this case are shuddering and shocking. It involved 12-year old Nicole Goodman, a school girl in common entrance class at a public school in the City of Castries and the 47-year old Accused, a baker by profession from the outskirts of Castries. In her testimony, Nicole provided graphic details of two sexual encounters with the Accused that took place at his home. On her first encounter, he wrote something on a piece of paper and asked her to write her name under it. She obeyed. He then drew on the floor two circles and inside of each circle, he drew a triangle. Afterwards, he took a blue plastic bathtub, put water in it and poured a green liquid from a small bottle into the water. He then asked Nicole to remove her clothes and bathe in the water. She did. After a refreshing bath, the Accused gave Nicole a white towel to dry herself and asked her to stand in the circle. He then took the same piece of paper on which she had written her name and pushed it in her vagina. The Accused proceeded to suck her breasts and vagina, pushed his penis in her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. She asked him why was he doing that and he replied that was on the paper.

4 On her second sexual encounter with the Accused, some more rituals were performed including the making of a cross on Nicole's back and chest. The Accused asked her to go to the bedroom where he again, had sexual intercourse with her. He told Nicole that these rituals were performed in order to assist her with her education and would 'open' her brains.

5 Subsequently, she made a report to the Police. The Police took her to Dr. Marius, a qualified Gynaecologist and Obstetrician practising on the island. Dr. Marius examined Nicole and found that she was a sexually active young lady who was no longer a virgin.

6 More investigations were conducted into this matter and the Accused was formally arrested and charged with two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge.

Sentencing

7 Section 215 of the Criminal Code of Saint Lucia states as follows:

"Whoever unlawfully and carnally knows any female under the age of 13 years of age, whether with or without her consent, is liable indictably to imprisonment for life, and to flogging."

8 So the penalty for an offence of this magnitude is 'imprisonment for life and flogging.' Flogging is regarded as barbaric, degrading, and inhumane and will soon be removed from our statute books.

9 The guidelines for sentencing in sexual offences cases were laid down by Sir Dennis Byron, Chief Justice in the consolidated appeals of Winston Joseph v the Queen1, Benedict Charles v the Queen2 and Sean Victor v the Queen3 on 31 ^st day of October 2001. All of these cases emanate from Saint Lucia. At page 6 of the judgment, Sir Dennis pronounced:

"Starting at a minimum where the girl is not far from her 13 ^th birthday and there are no aggravating factors at 8 years and upwards. It scarcely needs to be said the younger the girl when the sexual approach commences the more serious the crime. The existence of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for this offence would allow a rapid escalation of the term of imprisonment as the age of the complainant decreases."

10 However, the actual sentence imposed will depend upon the existence and evaluation of aggravating and mitigating factors. But Sir Dennis warned at page 8 of the judgment:

"It is not enough for a court merely to identify the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing. A sentencing court must embark upon an evaluative process. It must weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors. If the aggravating factors are outweighed by the mitigating factors then the tendency must be toward a lower sentence. If however, the mitigating factors are outweighed by the aggravating factors the sentence must tend to go higher."

11 Fully cognizant of the guidelines, I will firstly attempt to weigh the mitigating factors against the aggravating factors and secondly, to embark on an evaluative process in order to determine the appropriateness of a sentence.

12 I pause to observe that these guidelines were re-affirmed in January of this year in yet another Saint Lucian case of Gregory...