The Queen v Camillus Paris
| Jurisdiction | British Virgin Islands |
| Judge | HARIPRASHAD-CHARLES J,Indra Hariprashad-Charles |
| Judgment Date | 29 August 2011 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2011] ECSC J0829-2 |
| Court | High Court (British Virgin Islands) |
| Docket Number | BVIHCR2010/0014 |
| Date | 29 August 2011 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL)
BVIHCR2010/0014
Ms. Christilyn Benjamin, Senior Crown Counsel and Ms. Jude Hanley, Crown Counsel, DPP Chambers for the Crown
Mr. Patrick Thompson of McW Todman & Co. for the Defendant
(Criminal Law - Sentencing - Offences against the Person -Sexual Offences - Child victims -Indecent Assault - Rape - Sentence-Matters to be considered)
On 30 March 2011, the defendant, Camillus Paris was found guilty by a unanimous jury of the following offences:
-
(i) One count of Indecent Assault committed between 1 September 2007 and 31 December 2008 on a girl under the age of 13 years;
-
(ii) One count of Indecent Assault committed between 1 January 2007 and 31 May 2009 on a girl under the age of 13 year; and
-
(iii) One count of Rape committed between 1 January 2007 and 31 May 2009 on a girl of or under the age of 13 years; to wit: a female of 7 years.
The sentencing and mitigation hearing was adjourned to 8 April 2011. Sentence was handed down the same day. Oral reasons were given for the sentence which I imposed. I now reduce those reasons to a written judgment.
Briefly, the facts of the case which the jury must have accepted can be summarized as follows: Camillus Paris alias Jim is a native of the Commonwealth of Dominica. He is 53 years old. He came to the British Virgin Islands ("the BVI") in 2007 to work. Between 2007 and 2009, he lived with the nuclear family of the virtual complainants, two very young girls. For anonymity, I shall refer to the older girl as "VC1" and the younger one as "VC2". VC1 and VC2 are sisters. VC1 was born on 9 February 1999 and VC2 on 28 January 2001. Mr. Paris is related to them. He is their cousin. Both girls attend primary school here.
Sometime between 1 September 2007 and 31 December 2008, Mr. Paris pulled VC1 into his bedroom after she had refused to go when he had called her. In his bedroom Mr. Paris put her on his bed to lie down and thereafter pulled down her pants and panty and touched her on her vagina. She bit him on his shoulder in order to get him to stop. He stopped and VC1 then ran outside and told her mother. Her younger sister was sleeping at the time of this incident.
Sometime between 1 January 2007 and 31 May 2009, Mr. Paris was at home. He was sitting next to VC2 in the living room whilst she was watching television. He then put his hand under her skirt and touched her vagina. VC2 told Mr. Paris to stop. He responded and told her that if she doesn't tell him to stop, he will give her a dollar. VC2 again told Mr. Paris to stop which he did.
Sometime between 1 January 2007 and 31 May 2009, Mr. Paris was at home with VC2. She was about seven years old at the time. She was in the living room watching television. Her older sister was playing outside. Her mother was not at home. She was by a friend called Walter. Mr. Paris called VC2 into his bedroom. She did not go. He then pulled her into the bedroom. He took off her clothes and then his. At that point, VC2 tried to run away but Mr. Paris held her hand and pulled her in. He pulled her on the bed and went on top of her. He then had sexual intercourse with her. She bit him. At some point in time, she screamed. Her mother came into the bedroom and met Mr. Paris on top of her daughter. She ordered him out of the bedroom which Mr. Paris did.
Nothing further happened until April 2010. During April every year, the BVI, like many other Caribbean Islands, observe CHILD ABUSE MONTH. The Guidance Counselor at the school that these girls attend invited Detective Constable Kendolph Bobb of the Family and Juvenile Unit of the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force to speak on various topics including Child Abuse. During his presentation on 27 April 2010, both girls were present. The very next day, the girls spoke to the Guidance Counselor. As a result of what they told the Guidance Counselor, she immediately contacted the Social Development Department.
On 6 May 2010, a report was made to the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force. On the same day, the girls were examined by Dr. Lorna Vergara. The doctor found that VC1's hymen was intact whilst VC2's hymen was not intact.
On 12 May 2010, the police accosted Mr. Paris at his residence in Carrot Bay. He was informed of the reports alleged against him. He was cautioned and thereafter, was arrested and transported to the Road Town Police Station.
On 13 May 2010, Detective Constable Bobb recorded two audio interviews of Mr. Paris. He categorically denied sexually molesting the young girls. Later on that said day, Mr. Paris was formally arrested and charged with two counts of Indecent Assault and one count of Rape.
Learned Counsel Mr. Thompson who appeared as Counsel for Mr. Paris, made a very strong plea in mitigation. He submitted that Mr. Paris is 53 years old, a father of three girls and married for seventeen years. Like Mr. Paris, he questioned, albeit, civilly, the verdict. He had difficulty in reconciling the jury's verdict with the fact that a happily married man with three daughters at colleges, would sexually assault these young girls. Be that as it may, he, nonetheless, has the bounden duty to represent his client which he passionately did.
Additionally, Mr. Thompson submitted that, in using guidelines, the sentencer ought to ensure that they are not mechanically adopted, for to do so, may result in sentences which are inappropriately high or inappropriately low. In this regard, he relied on the case of R v Loff James Lennon1. In that case the appellant was convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. The appellant was involved in a relationship with the mother of the nine-year old girl. He masturbated in the girl's presence and then pulled off her trousers and knickers.
Finally, Mr. Thompson implored the court to temper justice with mercy. It is beyond dispute that Mr. Paris is a man with an unblemished criminal record.
Senior Crown Counsel Ms. Christilyn Benjamin referred to the guiding principles for the sentencing of sexual offenders which were elucidated by our Court of Appeal in the consolidated appeals of Winston Joseph v The Queen, Benedict Charles v The Queen and Glenroy Sean Victor v The Queen. 2 There, Sir Dennis Byron CJ 3 [as he then was] stated that the actual sentence imposed should depend upon the existence and evaluation of aggravating and mitigating factors. The tendency would be towards a higher sentence if the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and vice versa.
In the present case, the Crown submitted that there are three aggravating factors and only one mitigating factor. The aggravating factors were identified as follows:
1. The ages of the virtual complainants: Mr. Paris was between the ages of 50 and 52 whilst VC1 was between the ages of 8 and 9 years old and VC2 between the ages of 6 and 8 years old at the time of the respective offences.
i. VC1 (approximate age difference of 42 - 43 years)
ii. VC2 (approximate age of difference of 42 - 44 years);
2. Seriousness and prevalence of the offences (as per Creque J in DPP v Shaunlee Fahie) 4
In R. v. Roberts (Hugh) [1982] 1 WLR 133, Lord Lane CJ stated at pages 134-135:
"Rape is always a serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it calls for an immediate custodial sentence…. A custodial sentence is necessary for a variety of reasons. First of all to mark the gravity of the offence. Secondly to emphasise public disapproval. Thirdly to serve as a warning to others. Fourthly to punish the offender, and last, but no means least, to protect women. The length of sentence will depend on the circumstances."
3. Breach of trust: (Mr. Paris was the virtual complainants' adult cousin and they lived in the house together.)
The sole mitigating factor identified by the Crown is that Mr. Paris has no previous convictions.
As is very usual in this jurisdiction, the Crown continued to demonstrate their efficiency by submitting a vast number of local, regional and UK authorities to assist the court in determining the proper starting point and sentencing range for these offences. The local authorities cited were: R. v. Andre Penn5, R. v. Donald Rogers6, R. v. Nelson Callwood7, R. v. Derek Cort8, R. v. Kemuel Dublin9, R. v. Ricky Callwood10,
R. v.Kelvin Turnbull11, R. v. Tifern Henley12, R. v. Malcolm Spencer13, R. v. Curtis Bruce14, R. v. Kerril Gilbert15, R. v. Shem Jackson, R. v. Robert Thomas16, R. v. Claudius Frett17 and R. v. Winston Harrigan18.Regional authorities included Dwight Dookie v. R.19 and Roger Naitram et al v R.20 The UK authorities referred to are as follows: R v. Milberry; R v. Morgan; and R v. Lackenby21R v Billam22; Attorney General's References Nos. 91, 119 and 120 of 200223 and R v Loff James Lennon. 24
Before I go on to consider each individual offence, I remind myself that the general considerations in relation to the sentencing of defendants upon conviction in sexual offences have been highlighted at length in an unfortunate number of recent judgments handed down by this court, more specifically in R. v. Andre Penn, R. v. Donald Rogers, R. v. Derek Cort, R. v. Tifern Henley and R. v. Curtis Bruce.
First and foremost, the court always bears in mind the four cardinal principles of sentencing namely "retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation." Here, I gratefully adopt the words of Lawton L.J. in R. v. Sargeant25 who emphasized that " any judge who comes to sentence ought always to have those four classical principles in mind and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Percival Campbell v R
...offences, the court reduced the sentence given by the judge after a trial from seven to six years' imprisonment. 12 Closer home, in R v Camillus Paris (BVIHCR2010/0014, judgment delivered 29 August 2011), a decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, the defendant was found guilty of t......