Legal decision in Henry Greene case can perpetuate the cycle of sexual violence

-Faith Harding

Psychologist Dr Faith Harding yesterday said that the impact of the legal decision in the Henry Greene rape case is damaging to the cycle of sexual violence against women in Guyana.

Dr Harding was one of the presenters at a workshop held to address the impact and implications of Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang’s recent decision on the operation of the Sexual Offences Act and victims of sexual offences.

Addressing about 100 persons in the St Stanislaus College auditorium, Harding said the decision by Justice Chang, quashing Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack’s advice to charge Greene with rape, has caused a lot of pain and can preempt the chances of stopping the cycle of rape and domestic violence against women.

She said Greene’s admission that he had consensual sex with his accuser, without a statement of remorse, “is damaging to the thoughts of our children. It is damaging to every single human being in this country.”

Another impact of the decision, she noted, is the undermining of relationships between women, victims of rape, victims of sexual assault and “the system.”  She said there is now need for more conversations on this issue, particularly in the education system.

She told the audience, which included women’s rights activists and educators, that rape is one of the most serious crimes against humanity.

“Let us stand up for the human rights of our people of this country and especially women who are the victims of the worst crime in the world, rape,” she said. She added that “it is also necessary [to] empower victims and bring reality and humanity into cases of rape, sexual exploitation and what we see as executive lawlessness.” She said we have now been left in a position where Greene will not have his day in court.

Later, women’s rights activist Karen De Souza, of Red Thread, said that by virtue of giving support to victims of sexual offences, including rape, her organisation has had some experience in dealing with the way sexual offences are addressed in the court.

She explained that the issue of how victims are destroyed in the courtroom, after having survived the rape, has often been discussed. According to De Souza, lawyers sometimes forget that they are human beings when they enter courtroom. “Their behaviour is very often truly disgusting,” she said.

‘Beyond Convictions,’ a study done by Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) on rape convictions and how the issue of rape was being dealt with in court, was the launching pad for the work towards the Sexual Offences Act 2010. That Act, De Souza said, recognises that there are very few cases likely to have witnesses, among other things. She said that it was easier to blame the victim than address the fact that something is seriously wrong with how the law deals with people.

According to De Souza, getting to step one—which is getting the police to take a report— is a challenge, much less step two, which is getting a person charged and taken to court.

She stressed that if there is to be an environment where all are equal under the law, then there must be somewhere to address the criminality of those in high places, noting that if there were an ombudsman, a complaint could have been made. She said the court of public opinion was the only place for the Greene case to go because the “police would not go up against their commissioner and we have to confront that. Something has to be available for the citizens of this country to deal with situations like that.”

De Souza said she had a difficulty with all the legal points being raised, because, “I was sitting in the courtroom when Justice Chang gave his decision and all I could think about is ‘what must this woman be feeling?’”

To her shock, De Souza said, during the ruling, Greene’s accuser was described as unreliable. She noted that while the judge “took this woman apart and destroyed her,” there was no mention of Greene. As a result, she opined that women are still unequal in Guyana and it will remain that way.

A woman accused the commissioner of police of rape, she said, “…and because he has money and friends and because of his position he is able to make sure that he does not answer under the law to this accusation.” She noted later that if an ordinary person were arrested for the same offence, he would have been jailed. Added to that, she said, the judgment was a total dismissal of the Sexual Offences Act that so many fought for. “We are going into all sorts of legal games,” she declared, adding that it is up to all citizens to pull lawyers in line and hold the government accountable where the law is concerned.

Also speaking at the forum, which facilitated questions from the audience, was UK barrister Ulele Burnham, who in the beginning of her presentation, made it clear that she did not want to discuss the chief justice’s decision, the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or the public discussions so far. Burnham, an advocate for human rights, spoke on the guidance judges are given when dealing with matters, including sexual offences.

Dr Arif Bulkan, lecturer at the University of the West Indies, also said that he did not want to touch on the decision and later made general points on its implications for the rule of law, access to justice, special treatment and victims’ rights. However, during his presentation, he described the decision as a remarkable ruling and said that in his years at the DPP’s chambers, he had not seen anything like it.

Merle Mendonca, of the GHRA, touched on promoting civic action for the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act and Dr Alissa Trotz gave her thoughts on accountability and justice.

The organisers of the workshop were the law firm Hughes, Fields and Stoby, GHRA, Red Thread and Help and Shelter, which will later review the presentations and interactive sessions and make a decision on the way forward.