M.R. v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (2025)
The appellant was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse and sentenced to four years of imprisonment under Section 10(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act. The Act criminalizes sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14 regardless of consent, and precludes any defense based on the accused’s lack of knowledge of the victim’s age. The victim, a 13-year-old girl, testified that the appellant lured her into his home, locked the door, pushed her onto a bed, and forced her to have sexual intercourse. The doctor who examined the victim testified that the medical evidence corroborated her testimony. After the trial, the appellant applied for an extension of time within which to appeal both his conviction and sentence, arguing that the doctor’s testimony was inconsistent and that the trial was unfair because the judge did not give a complete “good character direction” to the jury, which is a statement about a defendant’s character generally given when they have no relevant or significant prior convictions. In order to determine whether to grant or refuse the extension of time, the Court of Appeal considered four elements: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the likelihood of the intended appeal’s success, and the prejudice, if any, to the respondent. The Court found that while the delay itself was not inordinate, the reasons offered for it seemed implausible. The Court also found that the doctor’s testimony was reasonable and clearly presented; therefore, the question of whether these discrepancies were material was a matter for the jury to decide. The Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to a full good character direction because he chose not to testify at the trial. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Topics
Geographical location
Keywords
Year
- 2025
External URL
Court
Type
Jurisdiction