BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - KEITHLEY GRIFFIN sat teary eyed in the prisoner's box yesterday (Jun. 10) while his attorney, Dr. Henry Browne QC, argued at length the reason why he should have his Unlawful Carnal Knowledge conviction and 20-year sentence quashed.
Griffin, who was 43 years old at the time, was unanimously convicted by a 12-member jury for the offence that was committed in February 2009, which is said resulted in the victim becoming a mother.
He had appealed against conviction and sentence on the following grounds:
• the appellant was denied a fair trial with regards to section 10 of the Constitution of the Federation; and
• the sentence imposed was unduly harsh.
Dr. Browne argued that Griffin was not given the opportunity to have a fair trial because he requested a paternity test to determine his innocence and was denied.
He stressed that the virtual complainant's testimony was that the child belonged to Griffin, while Griffin’s testimony was that he never committed the act, therefore the child could not be his.
He also stressed that Griffin requested a DNA test be done and the Crown's failure to do so denied him a fair trial.
Dr. Browne was asked if the prosecution was obligated to conduct a test and he responded in the positive, explaining that the end result of the defilement was a baby and so DNA tests should have been conducted.
He argued that had that been done, Griffin would have been able to mount a viable defence.
He also argued that the trial judge did not consider the lack of DNA tests either, and so the jury had no directive on that factor.
In response, Counsel O'Neil Simpson argued that the prosecution was in no way obligated to order DNA testing, and if Griffin so wanted one he could have gone himself and get it done. He also argued that the prosecution was not responsible for providing him with his defence.
One of the Justices of Appeal asked whether or not the prosecution or the trial judge should have ordered tests to be done, considering one was requested by Griffin.
Simpson responded by stating that a unanimous guilty verdict was given by the 12-member jury, having heard all parties' sides of the story.
He argued that Griffin took the stand and told his story but the jury did not believe him.
In delivering judgement, one Justice of Appeal stated that Dr. Browne "pitched his wagon" on one statement made by Griffin to the police when he was first confronted with the allegation made against him.
"In response to the police investigator informing him of the complaint, he said: 'I don't know nothing about that, test me if you want.' That was the totality of the reference by the appellant to this particular issue. It was never again repeated any or at any time, not by the appellant himself nor by distinguished counsel on his behalf," he stated.
He said to have the entire trial vacated on the basis that that one statement caused Griffin an unfair trial because the police did not have him, the virtual complainant and the baby tested could not be considered by the Court.
"The Court does not consider that the Crown was under any obligation to order tests to be done on the appellant and on the virtual complainant and her child, based solely on the appellant having made that remark when confronted with the allegation," the Justice ruled.
He stated that there was evidence given by the virtual complainant, the mother of the virtual complaint, police officers and medical evidence was also given. He also stated that Griffin testified at his trial and the jury heard all evidence and brought a unanimous verdict against him.
"In these circumstances, this Court does not consider that the appellant was denied a fair trial mainly on the basis that the police did not take up his challenge - 'Test me if you want'.”
The appeal against conviction was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
With regards to Griffin's 20-year sentence, the Justice stated that the trial judge referred to the principles and guidelines of sentencing but did not establish a benchmark sentence and move from there to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and adjust accordingly.
He said that the benchmark sentence for Unlawful Carnal Knowledge is eight years with the maximum being life imprisonment.
He noted that the mitigating circumstances to be Griffin only having no previous run-ins with the law and that no weapon was used, while the aggravating factors were him abusing his position of trust, the nature of the offence and the non-use of contraception, therefore exposing the victim to diseases and pregnancy and the significant age difference, considering he was 43 years old and the victim was only 15.
The Justice ruled that the Court would quash the 20-year sentence and impose a sentence of 14 years, with the time spent on remand to be reckoned in calculating the time to be served.
