Selwyn Lancaster, the Linden man who was sentenced to 15 years behind bars after being found guilty of raping and fondling a six-year-old, has moved to the Appeal Court to have the sentence overturned.
The charges against Selwyn Lancaster stated that on October 6th, 2018, he engaged in sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years. A second charge stated that on November 6th, 2018, he engaged in sexual activity with a child by touching her vagina.
The 45-year-old man was found guilty of the offences by a jury in early October and sentenced by Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall to 15 years in prison for the rape of the child and seven years for sexual activity with the child. The judge ordered that the sentences run concurrently.
The appeal, which was filed by Lancaster’s attorneys, Gordon Gilhuys and Yondessa Welcome-Mercurius, states that one of the grounds for the challenge is the trial judge made an error in summing up the evidence to the jury.
Lancaster’s attorneys are arguing that the judge’s summation was weighed in favour of the prosecution and unbalanced. The grounds for the appeal also include that the trial judge misdirected the jury when she noted that she will not read all the evidence while summing up.
A date, however has not yet been set for the hearing of the appeal.
During sentencing, Justice Morris-Ramlall had told the court that she considered the nature of the crime and the fact that the victim was just six years old at the time and that the accused had betrayed the trust and respect of the child and her mother.
The judge had noted that while he committed the act while the child’s mother was just a few feet away, spoke to the “depravity of his mind”.
In an impact statement made by the victim, which was presented to the court, the victim had noted that she becomes angry whenever she sees the accused and stated that she no longer trusts people because of what the accused did to her. The victim further stated that she wanted the accused to go to jail for the offence.
Prior to the sentence being handed down, the judge noted that she had considered a plea in mitigation which was presented by Lancaster’s attorney. She then noted that it however, must be viewed in the context of Lancaster failing to demonstrate remorse and the fact that he maintained innocence in the face of the jury’s guilty verdict. The judge further considered a probation report, which was largely unfavourable towards the convict and indicated predatory behavior on his part and even though there was no previous conviction she said the findings could not be ignored.
