The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

A MAN accused of having sex with a three-year-old boy will soon learn his fate after a Supreme Court judge gives a summation of the case today before turning it over to the jury for deliberation.

Colyn Algreen was arrested in November 2019 and charged with sexual intercourse with a minor after a woman known to him discovered her son’s anus was injured and bruised after he had gone out with Algreen to buy food.

Algreen pleaded not guilty to the offence during his trial before Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson, who is presiding over the case.

Fourteen witnesses called by the prosecution have since given evidence in relation to the matter, including the victim’s mother, grandmother and several police officers.

Following the close of the prosecution’s case, Algreen’s attorney, Miranda Adderley, made an application for a no-case submission after contending that a prima facie case was not made out.

However, after some consideration, Justice Grant-Thompson overruled the no-case submission and said the matter would proceed to the jury for deliberation.

In response to the judge’s decision, the accused chose to remain silent and also opted not to call any witnesses to testify on his behalf.

During yesterday’s proceedings, both the Crown and defence lawyers delivered their closing arguments in the trial, reminding jurors of their task to be fair minded and impartial.

Ms Adderley told the nine-member jury they must make their decision based on the facts and not speculation.

She noted that due to the serious nature of the offence, it might be easy for them to become sympathetic towards the alleged victim. However, she said they must put their feelings aside and rely solely on the facts.

“The defendant stands before you as an innocent man… suspicion is not enough. You must be sure the defendant has committed every element of the offence of which he is accused,” she said.

Speaking directly about the evidence presented in court, Ms Adderley told jurors there were some inconsistencies in several witness testimonies, claiming the case was filled with “gaps”.

The attorney said an example of this was seen in both the victim’s mother and grandmother’s testimonies during trial.

“When asked to the (mother) was Colyn ever left at home without you being present with your son, at first she said ‘no’ and then she said ‘oh, sometimes when she goes to work, Colyn would be there with him’. When we asked (the grandmother) if Colyn was ever left alone without the mother’s presence, she also said ‘no’ at first and then said ‘yes,’ other persons were home,’ she told the court.

“It’s a big house, we submit that there were other opportunities available if this was the intention of the defendant. It was not.”

She also reminded jurors that no DNA was found linking Algreen to the boy.

“There were oral swabs collected, rectal swabs, blood samples… Over 30 pieces of evidence collected, no semen found.. If this sexual assault occurred, something should’ve been there,” she said.

The defence attorney then turned her focus on the accused’s character, telling the court he was described by the alleged victim’s relatives as a “family man”.

Ms Adderley also explained that officers who testified on the stand confirmed that Algreen cooperated with police and voluntarily assisted with providing DNA samples, which she said showed the accused had nothing to hide.

“We say to you the jury that the prosecution failed in their duty. There is no eyewitnesses, no CCTV, no evidence, no DNA to back up their allegations.”

Crown attorney Eucal Bonamy told the jury they must use common sense when considering the facts of the case.

He reminded them of the mother’s earlier testimony, where she spoke about the events leading up to the incident.

In her evidence, the boy’s mother told the court she was sitting on the couch on the day in question when Algreen decided to go out to get something to eat from a food truck in the Yamacraw area that was about two minutes away.

The woman said as the accused was about to go to the door, her then three-year-old son cried to go with him, so she allowed him to go.

She said at the time, the accused asked her if she wanted to come as well, but she declined because she was not feeling well.

However, she said when she realised five minutes had gone by, she tried to call Algreen’s phone, but it kept going to voicemail.

She said she then became worried and continued to panic while calling his phone until he arrived home about an hour later.

The woman said when the accused pulled up, she grabbed her son, who was holding a bottle of Goombay soda in his hand and carried him inside.

She said when she laid him on a bed and took off his underwear, she noticed a blood stain on it along with some residue of faeces. She said she also saw bruising on his buttocks.

Mr Bonamy asserted that Mr Algreen had a duty to ensure the then three-year-old boy returned safely to his mother, but noted he failed to do that.

Mr Bonamy also spoke at length about the child’s injuries, noting that when the boy left with Algreen, he was unharmed and “ in good health.”

“There was nothing wrong with the child when he left with him,” the attorney told the court.

“The mother testified that the child (defecated) which means she had an opportunity to clean the child five minutes before he left with Mr Algreen,” he added. “You have the photographs. You see the injury… It is reasonable to infer that (the mother) would’ve seen the injury on that child when she cleaned him before he left with Mr Algreen.”

He also referred to evidence given by a doctor, who examined the child’s injuries and gave testimony to that fact in court.

“(The doctor) said she took swabs of the rectum which contained blood and the blood, like the doctors, said indicated some kind of trauma....the doctor dismissed any possibility that some stool may have caused that.. it had to be caused by an object,” he said.

In closing, Mr Bonamy said just because no semen or bodily fluid was found, doesn’t mean that the boy was not sexually assaulted.

“The evidence in this case is one of circumstantial evidence,” Mr Bonamy told the court. “It is not what the witnesses said or didn’t say. It has nothing to do with inconsistencies of witnesses...It is that the alleged victim left with the defendant and he was in good health at the time. No one else as we know had the opportunity to interfere with the child.”

Justice Grant Thompson is expected to sum up the case at noon today.