The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has upheld the 21-year prison sentence of Akeem Wilson, ruling that a jury was entitled to convict him of raping a drunk 21-year-old woman who said she woke to find him on top of her on a bathroom floor in an apartment he owned.

In February, 2025, Wilson was convicted at the Supreme Court of raping the woman sometime between July 4 and July 5, 2021. Justice Renae McKay sentenced him to 21 years in prison, less time spent on remand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on March 31 and released its written reasons on June 11, affirming both his conviction and sentence.

Justice Bernard Turner, delivering the court’s reasons, rejected Wilson’s argument that the trial judge should have taken the case away from the jury because the complainant’s identification evidence was weak, the lighting was poor, her observations were brief and she was intoxicated.

The court said the woman had known Wilson for seven years, saw him twice during the incident and later identified him during a confrontation.

“It cannot be said that a one minute observation and then a 40-45 second observation of a person known to the VC, in a room that is illuminated, in a residence owned by the appellant, supported by an independent form of identification in the form of a confrontation, can be properly characterised as a fleeting glance,” Justice Turner wrote.

The prosecution’s case was that on July 4, 2021, the complainant picked up her sister, who was the mother of Wilson’s child, from her sister’s residence on Knowles Drive off Tonique Williams Darling Highway.

The women went to a restaurant at Fish Fry, Arawak Cay, where they ate, and the complainant had one alcoholic beverage. Shortly before 8pm, they left Fish Fry and went to New Dawn, a bar on Rosetta Street owned by Wilson.

They continued drinking at New Dawn until shortly before 11pm. While heading back to the sister’s residence, they discovered that the sister had left her bag at the bar.

They returned to retrieve it, and the complainant saw Wilson there. The women then went back to the sister’s two-bedroom apartment, which Wilson owned.

The complainant and her sister entered the apartment using the sister’s key and locked the door behind them.

The complainant later began to feel dizzy while lying in her sister’s bed and went to the bathroom to vomit. She sent her boyfriend a video of herself leaning over the toilet to confirm that she had arrived safely.

She eventually left the bathroom and went into her niece’s bedroom to lie down, but again felt dizzy. She turned on the hallway light and returned to the bathroom to vomit. She then lay on the bathroom floor and fell asleep while wearing a pink dress, panties and a bra.

The woman testified that she woke to the sound of grunting in her ear and saw Wilson on top of her. She said the bathroom light was off, but the hallway light shone directly into the bathroom. She said nothing obstructed her view of his face.

She also realised she was no longer wearing her panties, though she had not removed them.

The woman testified that she felt Wilson insert his penis into her vagina while moving up and down on her. She said she was in shock and fell asleep again.

She said that when she woke a second time, she saw Wilson standing over her and buckling his belt before he left.

The complainant denied consenting to sex. She said she was physically unable to resist because she was intoxicated. She later crawled into her niece’s room and went to sleep.

Around 6am the next morning, she told her sister what Wilson had done. Later that morning, she showered and went to work, where she told two colleagues what had happened.

The following day, she told her boyfriend and father. After being encouraged to report the matter, she went to the Criminal Investigations Department and made a formal complaint.

Dr Tamara Mackey examined her on July 7, 2021, completed a sexual assault kit and noted no abrasions, lacerations, contusions, bruising, tenderness, bleeding, semen, bite marks, scratches or foreign material in her vagina.

On July 15, 2021, the complainant took part in a confrontation with Wilson and identified him as the person who had sex with her without her consent while she was intoxicated.

During the confrontation, Wilson asked whether she was making up the allegation because he had called her a “Haitian”. The complainant denied that he had ever called her a “Haitian”, saying they rarely spoke.

Wilson did not give evidence at trial and called no witnesses. His defence was that the complainant was untruthful and fabricated the story to get back at him for calling her a “Haitian”.

His lawyers also relied on the lack of corroborating evidence and the delay in reporting the matter to loved ones, arguing that the jury should find the complainant neither credible nor truthful.

The jury convicted Wilson by a 6-3 majority.

On appeal, Wilson’s lawyers argued that Justice McKay should have withdrawn the case from the jury because the identification evidence was poor and unsupported by other evidence.

Murrio Ducille, KC, argued that the complainant’s evidence about the bathroom light being off and the hallway light shining into the bathroom showed the lighting was far from ideal. He also argued that seeing Wilson for one minute, and later for 40 to 45 seconds, amounted to a fleeting glance.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by Terry Archer, argued that the case was based on recognition, not identification of a stranger. He noted that the complainant had known Wilson for seven years and gave evidence that she saw him on two occasions during the incident.

The Court of Appeal sided with the prosecution.

Justice Turner said the complainant’s intoxication was a matter for the jury when deciding whether she was a credible and reliable witness.

The court also rejected Wilson’s complaint about the use of his Record of Interview.

Wilson’s lawyers argued that the trial judge wrongly allowed the unsigned Record of Interview into evidence, even though Wilson had only answered “no comment”.

Justice Turner said that the argument mischaracterised what happened at trial because the document itself was not marked and entered as an exhibit. Instead, the investigating officer refreshed her memory from it.

The court said Wilson’s trial lawyer had seen the document and raised no objection to the officer using it to refresh her memory. The court also noted that Wilson made no admissions in the interview.

The Court of Appeal further rejected Wilson’s complaint that Justice McKay wrongly told jurors they could convict him on the complainant’s identification evidence alone if they accepted it.

Justice Turner said the trial judge properly warned jurors about the dangers of convicting on identification evidence and told them that even an honest witness can be mistaken.

The court said the judge also properly directed the jury on the lack of corroboration, warning them of the danger of convicting on the complainant’s evidence alone while explaining that they could still do so if they accepted her account.

Wilson also argued that his 21-year sentence was manifestly harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument too, noting that rape carries a sentence ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment.

In sentencing Wilson, Justice McKay said she considered that he had no previous antecedents and was a successful businessman, a strong family man and a provider. However, she also found several aggravating factors, including the complainant’s age, Wilson’s familiarity with her, and the fact that she was intoxicated and thought she was safe in her sister’s home.

Justice Turner said no error in principle had been shown, and the 21-year sentence did not fall outside the range a judge could reasonably impose.