Today I will break down sections 72 of the Sexual Offences Act, Cap 8:03, Laws of Guyana (the SOA).
This section gives guidance to Guyana’s courts in cases where the complainant did not report a sexual offence immediately.
Section 72 (1) (a)-(d) of the SOA says that when a court is considering whether a person made a complaint to the police as soon as could be reasonably expected, the court must consider the following:
1. the nature of the sexual offence, the stigma and
humiliation attached to sexual abuse and the
fact that such offences are difficult to report;
2. the relationship between the complainant and the accused;
3. specific characteristics of the victim; and
4. any other relevant factor.
Section 72 (2) states that whether a complaint was made as soon as could reasonably be expected depends on the facts of each individual case. That section also makes it clear that “there is no outer limit” for what constitutes “as soon as could reasonably be expected”, meaning that it does not matter if a sexual offence is reported two hours, two months, two years, or two decades after the incident occurs.
I take a moment here to get into why a section was needed to address delay in reporting sexual offences.
Victims of sexual violence often delay mentioning the occurrence to friends and family. They are less likely to report it to authorities, including the police, and when they do, it is often after some time.
When, and or if victims of sexual violence do report the violence to police after any kind of delay, it is possible for jurors to question the implication of the delay without encouragement from defence counsel. The conclusion may or may not result in disbelief in the complaint.
Section 72 seeks to mitigate the likelihood that juries will draw negative inferences from delay in reporting sexual violence.
Judges are required to tell juries that a victim may not immediately report sexual violence for a variety of reasons.
For example, the circumstances may require a judge to explain to juries that a complainant may have delayed reporting sexual violence due to the nature of the violence (the use of a foreign object in vaginal penetration for example), and the stigma and humiliation which the complainant felt due to the sexual abuse. The judge would also be required to explain that sexual violence or sexual abuse is generally difficult for victims to report.
A judge may also be required to explain that the nature of the relationship between the complainant could have caused the delay. For example, an employee may delay reporting sexual violence by an employer out of fear or losing a job.
The examples given in section 72 (1) are not the only caution a court may give. The terms “any other relevant factor” at section 72 (1) (d) means that the judge must give whatever caution is necessary based on the facts.
Further, section 72 (2) means that a court is required to explain that any delay, no matter how extreme, may be justifiable, and at the least, should not automatically discredit a report.
Section 72 therefore works along with other sections in the SOA to try to ensure the fair treatment of victims of sexual violence in Guyana.
