DPP v B (F)
1998 WJSC-CCC 5223
THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
DPP V D (J) UNREP 27.4.95
DPP V R (J) UNREP 5.12.95
DPP V BRAMBRICK
DPP V JACKSON UNREP CCA 26.4.93
DPP V G
Words & Phrases:
The Accused has pleaded guilty to counts of rape, indecent assault and incest perpetrated against his three daughters over a period of years. The counts before the Court are a token sample of outrages so numerous that they cannot be quantified which certainly run into many hundreds.
Many of the crimes had the attendant aggravating features and perversions which are now routine in cases coming before this Court. The unique feature of this case is that the Accused operated a sexual tariff by requiring his daughters to submit to a sexual act with him before being allowed out the front door of their dwelling house. This "customs post" was in operation while the Accused's wife was out of the house acting as the provider by working as a cleaner.
Matters came to light when the youngest girl aged 17 left home early last year. She went to stay with an aunt and in the course of her aunts seeking to persuade her to return home, she disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted by her father. The aunt summoned the mother and the disclosures were discussed. In the course of this, the eldest girl and the middle girl volunteered that they had been sexually assaulted in various ways by their father.
The family members went from the aunts flat to the family home where the Accused was confronted with the allegations. Upon being confronted he admitted to having slept with the youngest daughter and before saying anything further he walked out of the house at 11.30 p.m. and surrendered to the Guards at Store Street Station at midnight where he confessed in some degree to what had been happening.
The following morning enquiries were made of the mother and the three daughters and it became apparent that matters were much more serious that it had initially appeared. It came to light that there was a history of a seven year period of sexual offences including rape being perpetrated against the three daughters of the Accused. In 1989, the Accused began to take a sexual interest in his eldest daughter who was then 14. He digitally penetrated her and began shortly to have sexual intercourse with her. As soon as the mother left home to go to work, the Accused took advantage of the situation. Initially, these sexual outrages took place two or three times a week. In addition to conventional sex, he required mutual oral sex, would suck her breasts and masturbate himself while placing his penis between her breasts.
In late 1989, the Accused began to take an interest in his second daughter who was aged about 13. He asked her to expose her genital area to him and he exposed his penis to her. He showed her pornographic magazines and rubbed her genital area with his finger progressing to inserting his finger. He required her to perform acts of masturbation while he penetrated her digitally.
There was a progression to mutual oral sex and she was required to perform acts with his scrotum and rectum. He would masturbate himself in front of her and then require her to perform oral sex with him. At age 14½ he had intercourse with her. He would ejaculate on her stomach or breasts. Once matters had progressed to sexual intercourse, it took place once or twice a week. On the occasions when she refused intercourse he would put his penis between her legs and ejaculate into her hands. If she said she was menstruating, he would verify whether this were true before excusing her from intercourse. To encourage intercourse, he would show her pornographic videos.
In relation to the youngest daughter when she was aged 15 he squeezed her breasts, inserted his finger into her vagina and rubbed his penis against her rear through her clothing. In September, 1994 matters progressed to intercourse with ejaculation over the stomach. This continued until July, 1995 when anal sex occurred. The demand for oral sex was refused.
The Accused's wife was totally unaware of what was taking place. She was the bread-winner and was out of the house working while these outrages were taking place. They went on from early 1989 until February 1996.
The statutory maximum penalties for most of the offences to which the Accused has pleaded guilty are life imprisonment. It seems to me that a life sentence would be appropriate for the following reasons:-
1. The gravity and multiplicity of the offences involved.
2. The calculated sexual tariff exacted from the girls over a period of years in the cowardly circumstances that it only operated when the wife was out at work.
3. Most importantly the fact that it would enable release to take place only when those qualified to so decide were satisfied that the Accused would no longer pose a threat.
4. That release from a life sentence is on licence which can be made subject to conditions and is subject to recall.
5. For deterrent effect.
Notwithstanding the penalties determined by Parliament, decisions of Courts binding on me preclude me from imposing the maximum penalty. I have set out my reasons for this conclusion in detail in the following judgments:-
1.D.P.P. -v- J.D. Sentence imposed on the 27th day of April, 1995.
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL