Both the conviction and 28-year sentence imposed upon child rapist Colvin Norton were yesterday affirmed by the Guyana Court of Appeal.
He had been found guilty of raping a six-year-old girl.
The appellate court found that contrary to arguments advanced by Norton, his conviction was neither unsafe nor unfair and that in the circumstances of his case, the 28 years were warranted and therefore not excessive.
Regarding the ground of appeal where Norton challenged the medical examination performed on the child by the doctor—arguing that it was not properly done—the Court of Appeal found that it was adequate.
Acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards, who read the decision of the Court, said the appellate Bench found that the jury was not left to speculate on the Doctor’s evidence which they found adequate; adding that the verdict on that ground could therefore not be regarded as having been either “unfair or unsatisfactory.”
Secondly, on the ground of appeal where Norton contended that the summation of the case to the jury was imbalanced because of certain comments the trial judge had made, the Chancellor said that in assessing the case and those statements complained of, it was not so found.
Chancellor Cummings-Edwards said that taken as a whole or even by themselves, the Judge’s comments “did not go beyond the bounds of fair judicial comments,” and were in fact fair and balanced as she highlighted the case for both the prosecution and defence; and what may have been both strengths and weaknesses for each side.
Against this background she said that the appellate court did not find the comments to have amounted to a “usurpation of the jury’s role,” while adding that the directions given to the panel were adequate, fair and balanced.
Meanwhile, regarding the sentence which the Appellant contended was excessive and harsh, and therefore unfair, the Chancellor cited case law precedent which established that an appellate court would not interfere with a sentence unless it is manifestly excessive or bad in principle.
She said that given the circumstances of the case against Norton, the appellate court did not find that the sentence was so bad in principle or excessive to have warranted any reduction being made.
Further, she noted that the trial judge had also handed down her sentence in keeping with precedent which establishes sentencing guidelines.
In all of the circumstances, the appellate court dismissed Norton’s appeal both against conviction and sentence.
The appeal was heard by the Chancellor along with Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud.
Background
Back in April of 2018, a jury unanimously found Norton guilty on both counts of rape of a child under the age of 16. He had been charged with penetrating the child on August 1st, 2013 and then again on August 6th of the same year.
He was 19 years old at the time.
In handing down her sentence, trial judge Justice Jo-Ann Barlow had said that the convict appeared to have become emboldened, which was evident by him again raping the child a mere five days after the first assault.
She said that after raping the child on the first occasion, Norton then sought to silence the girl by declaring that if she said anything, her mother would not believe and would kill both of them.
Noting that the young girl’s mother had walked in and caught Norton “red handed” in the act during the second assault, the judge opined that he may have gone on to repeatedly assault the child.
The judge had told Norton that if there were a mitigating factor to consider on his behalf, it would be the fact that he was 19-years-old at the time of committing the offence. The judge was, however, quick to point out that his age in no way justified or excused the reprehensible act he perpetrated on the six-year-old.
On each count, the man was sentenced to 24 years of jail time.
An additional four years were, however, added for the aggravating circumstance of the child’s mother having caught the convict raping her daughter five days after he would have first violated her.
Justice Barlow ordered that the sentences run concurrently.
Additionally, she ordered that the convict be exposed to any sexual offence rehabilitation programmes offered by the prison service.
The Court noted also that the girl continues to receive counselling for the trauma she would have endured as a result of the assaults.
