REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Cr. App. No. 26 of 2000

BETWEEN

SURUGHLAL RAMDASS                   APPELLANT

AND

THE STATE                                          RESPONDENT

PANEL:   

M. de la Bastide, C J

L. Jones, JA

A. Lucky, JA

APPEARANCES:

MR. R. RAHIM appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

MR. R. DOLSINGH, S.C. appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENT

DATE DELIVERED:

              Thursday May 31^st, 2001.

JUDGMENT

Judgment Delivered by M. de la Bastide, C.J.

In this case, the appellant was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 years.  At the time of the offence, the victim was in fact 12 years old, nearly 13.

The appellant was 41 years old at the time of the offence.  He was a married man with two children.  Counsel for the appellant has indicated that the appellant is not pursuing the appeal against conviction but is only challenging the sentence of ten years imprisonment with hard labour which was imposed on him.  The maximum for this offence is life imprisonment.

Counsel has relied on one ground in support of the appeal against sentence, that is, that it was excessive in the circumstances.  In support of that ground, he has advanced two arguments; one is that the virtual complainant had made overtures to the appellant prior to his committing the offence.  The reference is to a number of letters which this schoolgirl wrote to the appellant apparently expressing her love for him.  These letters were obviously the product of a child’s infatuation, if it can be called that.

Counsel also made the point that the appellant and his wife had brought these letters to the attention of the virtual complainant’s mother with a view to putting a stop to them.  It is noteworthy, however, that this was only done after the offence was committed, and also after the appellant’s wife had found a torn-up portion of one of these letters.

The other point made by counsel was that the appellant had attempted to pay compensation to the virtual complainant or her family, and this, he submitted, as did counsel in the court below, was evidence of his contrition.

The Judge in the court below pointed out, quite aptly in our view, that the supposed contrition did not extend to his entering a guilty plea.  No one is to be penalized for having exercised his right to defend a criminal charge, but if he seeks some special consideration when sentence is imposed, on the basis of his having demonstrated contrition, then it is highly relevant that he has contested the charge, in this case at some cost to the virtual complainant in terms of the embarrassment and humiliation which she must have suffered as a result of having to give evidence in court and be cross-examined.  With regard to the claim to mitigation based on receipt of the letters, it is difficult to understand how a 41-year-old man can seek to mitigate an offence of this sort by relying on the fact that the 12-year-old victim wrote him love letters.  I would also mention that the evidence of the virtual complainant, although we do not know whether the Jury accepted it, was that she did not consent to the act of intercourse but in fact, objected strongly to what the appellant did to her.

What is apparent from the evidence which the Jury must have accepted, is that the appellant laid a carefully constructed plan in order to take advantage of this girl’s childish infatuation and have sex with her.  He took the day off from his work, drove to her school before school started, picked her up there and then took her to a hotel, where he proceeded to book a room and take her into it.  En route, he also stopped more than once to buy beers and offered her, this 12-year-old child, beer to drink.  His behaviour was quite despicable.  In the circumstances we find no merit in the complaint about the sentence.  We think the Judge was quite justified in passing a sentence of 10 years imprisonment on him, and we dismiss the appeal.  Conviction and sentence affirmed. 

MR. GASPARD:  Much obliged, My Lord.