The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Court Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

CLOSING arguments were delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday in a case in which a father is alleged to have molested his then teenage daughter.

The 48-year-old man, represented by Murrio Ducille, KC, returned to court for the continuation of his incest trial before Justice Guillimina Archer-Minns.

It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused sexually abused his now adult daughter twice, once in 2015 and again in 2016 when she was 15 and 16 years old.

Charges were officially filed against him in 2017. In a previous trial appearance, an audio recording was played in court of the accused begging the complainant not to tell anyone of the alleged incidents because he was afraid of going to jail.

When Mr Ducille made his remarks, he asked that the jurors only concern themselves with the testimony of witnesses in the trial and not any outside information on the case.

In addition to saying that jurors should divorce themselves from ongoing public discourse on the issues of rape and marital rape, he said that the court must dispense justice in this matter clinically and dispassionately.

Mr Ducille then called into question why the complainant took so long to come forward with her allegations, stating that she had continued to go to her father’s house up until his arrest in mid-2017. He further suggested that as the two had a strained relationship that the incidents never happened. He went on to call her claims “contrived”. The defence also said there was no consistency in the complainant’s timeline of allegations.

Referring to the audio recording played in court, the defence maintained that it was not his client’s voice being heard. The attorney also called it suspicious that the app or phone associated with this recording was not seen in court, before calling the audio itself repetitive. He continued on this point to say that there was no confession to the allegations in it.

Readdressing a Facebook post from Wednesday’s trial date, Mr Ducille pointed out conflicting claims from the complainant and that day’s witness. As he stated that while both acknowledged they were in the photo, they both also claimed to have posted it online. He further said that the post itself was “deceptive” as it was made to make someone else jealous.

Taking aim at the complainant, Mr Ducille called her “cunning” before further comparing her to a fox. He then said that while giving testimony she had an answer for every question and insinuated that she purposefully claimed difficulty understanding him as a delay tactic to form a response. Mr Ducille claimed that there is “no truth” to what the complainant said in the witness box.

The defence closed by saying that this is a “very, very strange” case and that his client is fighting for his freedom and it is up to the jury to decide his fate.

In Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Basil Cumberbatch’s closing arguments, he repeated Ducille’s earlier comment that “the truth wears no mask”. However, he disputed the defence’s claim over the peculiarity of the charges saying there was nothing strange about this case to him.

In tackling the defence’s point on the Facebook post of a high school age complainant and a close friend which the defence used to imply the two were in a relationship, he intimated that this piece of evidence was fabricated.

The prosecutor said that while the complainant and the witness both admitted to being in the photo, the document shown in court was not the original.

He then once again cited the defendant’s history in information technology before saying that he intentionally altered the post to suggest his daughter and her high school friend were in a sexual relationship. The prosecutor pointed out that this was done to defame the complainant and conflict with her earlier statement that she was a virgin before she was sexually abused by her father. He also dismissed the defence’s suspicions over the recording app and phone stating that it was the recording itself that was pertinent to the case.

The prosecution then countered by alleging that the defendant’s own phone was never given to authorities as it would have implicated him in the incident. He further said that the defendant in 2015 held down his 100lb daughter and had his way with her outside of his condo’s pool bathroom because he hated her for having to pay child support.

In addition to suggesting that the defendant resented having his daughter in his life citing previous evidence that he doubted his paternity, he also linked the allegations to the defendant’s own purported rape as a child by his uncle. As such the prosecutor said that the defendant’s resentment over child support coupled with his own alleged abuse as a child made the molestation of his own daughter an act of punishment.

After saying that it is “a clear-cut case” as the recording directly implicated the defendant in his daughter’s rape, the prosecutor also stated that the defendant’s brother offered the complainant $5,000 in hush money. He added that the complainant has witnesses of her uncle urging her at the Fish Fry not to proceed with charges, willing to verify this claim if necessary.

In closing, Mr Cumberbatch asked the jury how many of them would make rape allegations against their own father at 15. As such, he said, that if they wouldn’t make up such a thing “why would the complainant?” He ended by stating that the evidence is clear, and he hopes for a guilty verdict.

The trial was adjourned to October 17 for summation by the Justice.