Having already been charged with raping three women, questions have been raised as to why Thurston Semple had been consistently granted bail.
A fourth charge was laid against him last Friday.
On January 13th, 2018, the then 33-year-old Tucville Terrace man had been placed before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan, who had granted him $200,000 bail on charges of allegedly raping two women.
The taxi driver had been allowed his pretrial liberty in the sum of $100,000 for each charge—the first of which stated that between November 30th, 2017 and December 1st, 2017, he raped a woman.
The second charge read to him at that initial hearing, stated that just months after he is alleged to have raped that first woman, he again allegedly raped a second woman—between January 3rd, 2018 and January 4th, 2018.
Later that same year—in April—Semple was before the courts again, charged with allegedly raping a third woman.
This was three weeks after he had been committed to stand trial for the alleged rape of the first two women.
Despite herself at that time having already found that there existed sufficient evidence to have committed Semple to stand trial in the High Court for allegedly raping the two women, Chief Magistrate McLennan before whom Semple again appeared, granted him bail on that third charge.
That August 31st, 2017 charge accused Semple of raping a woman at Quamina Street.
Speaking to legal sources who wish not to be identified, Stabroek News was told that at that point when the third charge was laid, Semple should have been denied bail, as it clearly showed “a particular pattern of behaviour.”
It was pointed out by this newspaper that the charges in relation to the two women were laid before the charge brought by the third woman—but who had allegedly been raped before the two women.
Against this background, it was asked whether this may have been a factor which led to the accused being admitted to bail by the Chief Magistrate.
One of the two sources—an attorney, said that while this may have been the case, that led to the court making a decision to grant bail, a strong argument could also be made as to why he should equally have been denied.
Pattern
The attorney said that though the alleged first-in-time assault was laid before the court after the latter two, bail at that point ought to have been refused because it would have seemingly showed a pre-existing pattern.
“It can be argued that the accused may have somehow been emboldened by the time you get to the charges involving the two women, but since those would have already been dispensed with, as a Magistrate you then have to ask yourself the question, what do I make of this third charge,” the attorney reasoned.
The source went on to further reason that while the offence is bailable, the fact that an earlier alleged offence had been brought before the court would suggest that it was a pattern of behaviour built upon from before, and should have been considered as a “strong” factor for which bail should have been denied at that point.
Weighing in on the issue, another source in legal circles offered the observation that since all the matters against Semple up to that point had been dealt with by the same Magistrate, whom he surmised would have been acquainted with the case, it is all the more reason why bail should have been denied.
The lawyer agreed with this observation, pointing out, too, that the prosecution in that third case had also objected to bail being granted, citing the fact that Semple had recently been committed for similar offences.
“At that point, if the accused was out on bail, I would submit that his bail should have been revoked,” the lawyer said, even as she pointed out that allegedly committing offences, (more so similar offences) are strong grounds for the refusal of bail.
Magistrate McLennan, however, went ahead and granted Semple his release on $100,000 bail, with the condition that he lodge his passport and stay away from the virtual complainant.
A fourth charge has now been laid against Semple.
The lawyer said that offences of a sexual nature, “especially where a pattern seemed to have developed, (denial of bail) is to protect not only a specific complainant, but any other potential complainant.”
The lawyer was keen to point out that from all indications, “it seems to be four different women who have now been allegedly raped by this accused anyway, so that is the point I am making when I say that a consideration of bail in these kinds of offences should not only be to say to an accused, stay away from the complainant.”
Semple, was last Friday slapped with a fourth charge of rape allegedly committed against another woman, while he continues to await trial in the matter against the two women.
On this occasion, however, Chief Magistrate McLennan before whom he again appeared, denied him bail.
The charge against the now 36-year-old states that between February 24th, and February 25th, 2021, at Georgetown, he sexually penetrated a woman without her consent. He has been remanded to prison until tomorrow.
He has denied raping the woman. The prosecution’s facts are that Semple, who often pays women to have sex with him, hired the woman and took her to his home. The court heard that once there they proceeded to engage in sexual activity but a few minutes after the woman complained about being in pain. Semple subsequently requested that she perform a sex act on him but she refused and as a result he allegedly held a knife to her neck and forced her to comply.
Police say the woman eventually escaped from the house through a window and she then ran to the public road. Semple allegedly ran behind her while being armed with a knife. The court heard that the woman was seen by neighbours, who reported to the police that she was wrapped in a sheet. An ambulance was summoned and the woman was taken to the hospital while Semple was arrested.
The matters against the two women for which Semple has been committed to stand trial are yet to commence in the High Court.
They have not been listed in this current criminal session and it is unclear when they are likely to be called.
Both sources to whom this newspaper spoke, lamented the sloth at which matters wind themselves through the judicial system, but the lawyer pointed to the age-old backlog issue which militates against swifter hearings.
“But somehow we still have to endeavour to do better,” she offered.
