The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN who yesterday described his conviction for sexual assault and abetment to sexual assault of a minor as a “miscarriage of justice” told a judge and jury before sentencing that “I’ve never been a homosexual in my life”.

Stephen Serrette, 53, and leader of the Christian People’s Movement, was given an opportunity by Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs to speak before he was sentenced to 15 years for the crimes a jury of two men and and seven women believed he had committed.

Despite telling the jury and the judge that he was not holding the outcome against them, Serrette said: “There was a lot of evidence from the defence that didn’t not come out because the prosecution would not allow it and that’s a miscarriage of justice.

“But it’s ok, we have avenues for remedies. I don’t hold it to your charge (even though) I didn’t have the full opportunity to express the truth,” he told the jury and the judge.

“I forgive every person who has wrongfully hurt me in the mighty name of Jesus Christ,” Serrette added.

He also lamented the escalating rates of murder and violent crime, calling for the country to fight for justice and for the nation to repent.

“I thank my family, my mother who was strong for me, my advisor of the Christian People’s Movement for being here. I’ve never been a homosexual in my life (and) I pray for the boys because it’s a miscarriage of justice. We will take the other avenues, but to God be the glory,” he said.

Prosecutor Aaron Johnson informed the judge that a court had imposed 16 years imprisonment on a convict found guilty in similar circumstances.

Senior Justice Isaacs then addressed Serrette and said that “both crimes carry a maximum of life imprisonment”.

“It’s all the discretion of the court and I’m not allowed to go behind the jury’s verdict. In this case, the victims were very young and I appreciate your utterances but that is your view,” the judge said.

Senior Justice Isaacs imposed a sentence of 15 years for both offences to run from the date of conviction.

Following the ruling, Serrette’s lawyer, Halson Moultrie, expressed surprise to The Tribune over the outcome.

“I was actually very surprised that it was a unanimous verdict and that it came back so quickly,” Mr Moultrie said. “Sexual offence allegations are easy to allege but difficult to defend and, in this circumstance, obviously the jury believed the testimony of the boy and as a consequence, they came back with a unanimous verdict.

“We have confidence in the system and the system allows for an appellate process so I am going to await instructions towards the appeal. We believe we have strong grounds for appeal in that very important statements from the police were not allowed,” the lawyer said.

Mr Moultrie further noted that there was no DNA evidence for the allegations to stand on.

The jury, on Tuesday, heard from the timid complainant who said he was six years old when the sexual abuse occurred in December 2010. At the time he, his then 10-year-old brother, mother and the accused were at home.

His mother, he said, was in her bathroom taking a bath. He and his brother were taking a shower in their bathroom when the accused allegedly instructed the brother to penetrate him with his “private”.

The child was asked if he was assaulted more than once. The boy said he was, as often as “seven to 10 times” between December 2009 and December 2010.

He also claimed that he was assaulted “three to five times” between December 2010 and December 2011.

“I didn’t know if it was right or wrong at the time ... (but now) I think it’s wrong,” the child said.

Serrette denied sexually assaulting the boy entrusted to his care while the mother had been in detention.

On Wednesday, he strongly denied the testimony of the complainant and said he did not order the boy’s elder brother to do the same.

The jury asked the accused if he ever bathed the boys. Serrette said he did, but never bathed with them.

In his summation of the evidence yesterday, Senior Justice Isaacs told the jury they would have, for their deliberations, the drawing the complainant drew for the psychologist depicting what had occurred.

“You can accept some of his evidence, all of his evidence or none of his evidence. That’s entirely a matter for you,” the judge said.

“The case for the accused is that he didn’t abet sexual assault or commit the sexual assault himself. He argues that the allegations are the mother’s retribution. In other words, he’s asking you to reject the evidence of the boy and his mother as being unreliable,” the judge added.

“If you accept the allegations are as a result of anger and hatred, then you must acquit as he cannot be convicted on the weakness of his defence but on the strength or weakness of the Crown’s case,” the judge also noted before excusing the jury to deliberate on their verdicts.

The jury returned 9-0 guilty verdicts on both counts.