Violent crime is mostly heinous. How else can one describe a scenario where persons set out to batter, murder, rape or terrorise other persons because they are stronger, more powerful or believe they can get away with it. However, the torture, battering, stabbing and subsequent death of Sharmin McKay of Bare Root/Bachelor’s Adventure, East Coast Demerara is especially gruesome. It must take a particularly sick mind to beat a woman to a near pulp, force kerosene oil down her throat, douse her body with the same flammable fluid and stab her repeatedly and forcefully first with an eating fork and then with a knife so that the blade of that weapon breaks off and lodges itself in her body.
Ms McKay was taken to the hospital after she was discovered bleeding some two hours after her ordeal, it was estimated. She lived a mere six days after in constant pain.
Ms McKay’s battery and murder tested the domestic violence response and unfortunately, despite all of the protestations of the authorities, found it woefully lacking. From all of the information now available, Ms McKay was a battered woman. The man who allegedly took her life and with whom she had lived at the Bare Root home where it all happened, had reportedly been abusing her for some time, relatives said. He was described as “a possessive man who isolated” McKay from her relatives.
Following the last instance of battery before this fatal episode, McKay had finally done what her relatives had counselled her to do in the past and what those in authority – the police and the Human Services Minister – say is crucial to curbing violence against women: she made a report to the police. Perhaps because of the heightened awareness of violence against women, or perhaps because of how badly she was beaten, the police did their work. Charges were levelled against the man and according to reports, he was remanded to prison. a
Two weeks later, and six days before Ms McKay was beaten, tortured, stabbed and left to die, the man was granted bail. There is no mention in the sequence of reports whether a restraining order was sought or not or whether one was issued by the magistrate hearing the case. However, it is clear that the subsequent assault took place in Ms McKay’s home in her bedroom. In one of the statements she gave to this newspaper while she was hospitalized the woman had said that she was sitting on her bed with the man and had no idea that he was about to attack her. She surmised that she must have been suddenly knocked unconscious because it was the pain of the violent assault that brought her back to her senses. Was there a restraining order? Did the attacker violate it?
The granting of bail to the man also needs to be questioned. It has been the practice – and still is – that defendants in domestic violence cases are placed on bonds to keep the peace. A case in point is Tuesday’s ruling by Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson in the matter involving the co-owner of Survival Supermarket and his wife. The fact that the accused was remanded in the first instance seems to indicate that the legal authorities believed he might have been a danger to the complainant. Or maybe it was felt that he would not have returned to face trial. What changed in that two-week period that saw the need to overturn that decision?
The reports on this case and others also make no mention of complaints and defendants being referred to social service agencies and non-governmental organizations where they may receive psychological help. Do magistrates ever ask for probation reports in these cases so that they may hear from children, relatives, neighbours about whether there has been a pattern of abuse and allow that to guide their ruling?
At the end of it all, will Ms McKay’s life be worth a mere five or eight years in prison, like so many others have been? This is another crucial test of the justice system. The response is bound to be interesting.
