The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

BISHOP Randy Fraser’s unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl was not only “contemptible”, but an act deserving of the severest condemnation.

These were the words of Court of Appeal judges yesterday after they dismissed the appeal against conviction and affirmed magistrate Carolita Bethell's three year sentence to the man of the cloth, who was branded a “sexual predator.”

While hoping that Fraser “has had time to think about what he has done,” Justices Anita Allen, Stanley John and Abdulai Conteh condemned his crime, calling it a “contemptible act.”

Their 18-page written ruling went into detail concerning their disdain of Fraser’s crime.

“It would be remiss of us if we were to let this opportunity pass without commenting on a case which has evoked so much public interest,” the document read.

“The unassailable facts reveal the appellant as a sexual predator under the guise of a man of the cloth and counsellor, who had abandoned all of his obligations and responsibilities, particularly his commitment to uphold the teachings of Christ himself who commanded: ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me.’

“In doing so, the appellant obnoxiously betrayed this young, vulnerable and emotionally fragile complainant who was entrusted to his care for emotional and spiritual healing; disgustingly defiled the sanctum of his church; besmirched the good name of men and women of the cloth who daily perform their Christian duties with diligence and integrity, and has brought shame and odium to his church, his wife and indeed, his community.

“This was a contemptible act and deserves the severest condemnation,” the document concluded.

Fraser, convicted in the retrial last November of having sex with a dependant church member between July 2005 and February 2006, sought to have the “unjust and unreasonable” conviction overturned in the appellate court.

After more than three months of waiting since his last appearance before the judges, Fraser returned to the Charlotte Street courtroom to learn whether or not he would have to return to a cell in the medium security division of Her Majesty’s Prison for the next 29 months.

In December last year, two weeks after his conviction, he was denied bail pending the outcome of appeal. The appellate court ruled that he had no exceptional circumstances that warranted him being eligible for a bond.

Then in February, through his attorney Jiaram Mangra, he argued that his conviction was not only unreasonable when regarding the evidence in the case, but claimed his trial was unfair, as he accused magistrate Bethell of being prejudicial in the case where she allegedly, on several interventions, usurped the role of the prosecutor.

The appellant also argued that there were a number of ‘“material inconsistencies” in the victim's testimony, bringing her credibility into question.

However, the judges disagreed with these grounds and submissions and said as much in the written ruling.

Regarding the victim’s testimony, the judges said: “This retrial took place some five to six years after the acts of sexual intercourse complained about, and it would be remarkable if the complainant remembered every element and detail of what occurred on each occasion after so many years.

“What is important is whether the inconsistencies of which the appellant complains go to the root of the evidence of the complainant or whether they are matters which may be explained and excused either by loss of memory after the passage of time, or by the difference in the powers of observation and recollection of witnesses and as such, nothing turns on them.”

On the claim of the magistrate’s prejudice, they ruled that “in the circumstances, we are satisfied that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was not violated by the interventions of the magistrate.”

“In the result, we find no merit in any of the grounds of appeal and for all the above reasons we dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the magistrate. The sentence is to run from the date of conviction.”

Absent from yesterday’s ruling was Mr Mangra, Fraser’s attorney.

The judges inquired about his whereabouts as his firm was informed of the judgment being ready to hand down yesterday despite adverse weather conditions.

The court clerk told the judges that Mr Mangra was off the island and wouldn’t be present for the ruling. Fraser himself said he had no knowledge of this.

The judges handed down their decision to deputy director of public prosecutors Franklyn Williams and prosecutor Darnell Dorsette without the defending attorney.

Mr Mangra could not be reached for comment.