Medical evidence in a rape matter involving a 10-year-old victim concluded that the child was sexually active, and her rapist has also implied that other men took advantage of the minor.

FitzAllan Wickham stood before Justice, Brian Cottle at the High Court on Friday, June 3, a 53-year-old man who had had sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 on two separate occasions in 2018.

He had pleaded ‘guilty’ to these two counts last month and ‘not guilty’ to two further counts that were subsequently withdrawn. A jury had already been empanelled when Wickham admitted guilt.

The offender was given a chance to say something last Friday, before he was sentenced.

He launched into recalling what seemed to be the day that the police went looking for him.

Wickham said that when condoms were found in an abandoned house, he had told the police he didn’t know anything about them.

The prisoner then referenced the family of the victim and his relationship with them.

After listening, the Judge reminded Wickham that he pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with the child, that he had said so in an electronic interview with the police, and that the principal of the school that the child attended witnessed his admittance. The prisoner was also reminded that he had also said that it was the child who brought the condom.

Wickham admitted that he said this, and had stated in court, “…because certain fellas and ting maybe used to go behind she and ting.”

Cottle indicated that he read the case file and that there seemed to be a suggestion that “other people did the same thing you did”.

“You should have reported it, you should have reported what was happening,” the judge said to him.

Wickham related that there was a time that the girl was seen emerging from the house of a man (who he named) and the child apparently told him that he shouldn’t tell her mother.

“Did you go to the police and tell the police that you saw this child coming out of (named man’s) house?” Cottle asked him.

The answer was no, and when asked for an explanation he said the mother “Sometimes, she nah want to hear the truth.”

Cottle reiterated that it should have been reported to the police.

It also came to light that the offender had claimed he was harassed by the victim for sexual intercourse. The prisoner said, “Yes (the child) used to harass me, me ain telling no lie.”

When it was pointed out that she was a child, Wickham said, “Me used to run she sometimes.”

The Judge informed him that he should have run her all of the times and not just some of the times.

Further questioning revealed that the prisoner did not provide any evidence to the police to help them to nab any other possible abusers of the young girl.

If he had been helpful, Cottle told him, that may have had an impact on his sentence.

Wickham did not appear to be able to think of anything further to say in his mitigation, so the court asked him if he had any children (because this would be a consideration). Wickham replied that he had none.

He also said his mother wasn’t there and neither was his father.

“Your mother say she can’t stand the thought of coming to see you,” where he was, Cottle noted.

Wickham also put forward that he wasn’t a “big set” of troublesome and that the child’s aunt didn’t like him.

“No that’s not why you’re here. Not because the aunty didn’t like you,” Cottle said, “you are here because of what you did.”

“And what makes matters worse is that you knew that there were other people doing wrong things,” and did not help so that they may also be punished for their wrongs, the judge said.

After this Cottle, delivering his sentencing remarks, began with the facts, using evidence prepared by the prosecution. The crown’s case was managed at the High Court by crown counsel, Renee Simmons.

Police investigations revealed that the 10-year-old girl sometimes stayed with her mother and at other times stayed with other relatives.

“One night in 2018, this prisoner invited her into his home. The virtual complainant accepted his invitation, and at his home, the prisoner had sexual intercourse with the virtual complainant,” the judge stated.

After the act, Wickham gave the victim $5 and sent her away.

On a separate occasion this series of events was repeated, and again $5 was given as a ‘payment’.

“…As happens in small villages, rumours began to circulate and these reached the ears of the child’s teacher at school and she reported the matter to the school’s principal. The principal made inquiries with the virtual complainant and then reported the matter to the police,” the judge said.

The police investigated, during which the girl was medically examined.

“The medical practitioner who did the examination reported that there was a complete absence of the hymen of the virtual complainant and that there was free passage for an adult sized speculum in the vagina,” Cottle noted, “That was extremely unusual for a 10-year-old.”

The doctor concluded that the young girl was sexually active.

The child took officers to the home of Wickham and showed them where the sexual acts occurred.

“She showed them a used condom, a condom wrapper. This prisoner was present, he said it was the complainant who brought the condom for him to use,” the judge stated.

Continuing their investigations, the police interviewed Wickham, who admitted the intercourse.

“He offered the ‘Lolita’ explanation as did the protagonist in that famous novel by Vladimir Nabokov. The prisoner said that he did what he did because the complainant harassed him to have sex with her and he gave in,” Cottle said.

The court also considers a social inquiry report that is prepared. This showed that the prisoner did not go to Secondary School. Members of his community said that they had nothing good to say so they wouldn’t say anything about him. However, one person said he was a good person, and the prison authorities say he is a model prisoner.

The law gives the court a maximum of life imprisonment to work with as it relates to this offence, but this is equated to 30 years in prison.

Using sentencing guidelines set out by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC), the judge decided on a starting point.

Due to the age of the child and the age disparity, the offence was placed in the highest levels of seriousness and consequences.

Following this, the provided grid leads the sentencing judge to adopt a starting point between a range of 50 to 80% of the maximum.

Cottle began at 66% or 20 years.

The aggravating and mitigating features were considered. The prisoner took advantage of the strained economic circumstances of the child who was of tender years. However, there was no gratuitous violence apart from the violence inherent in the offence and he confessed to the police at an early stage. Wickham was also suggested as a good candidate for rehabilitation and had no previous convictions.

Regarding the mitigating factors as slightly outweighing the aggravating, the sentence was carried down to 18 years.

After the one third discount is taken off for a guilty plea, the sentence rested at 12 years, with a further subtraction of time spent on remand which at the time was two years and 13 days. Wickham had nine years 11 months and 17 days remaining to spend of the 12 years.

While the two counts occurred on different dates and the court determined that sentences should run one after the other, the judge still had to consider the ‘totality principle’ (to reflect a sentence that is proportionate to the offending behaviour).

Therefore, for the second count Wickham will spend four years in jail, to start after the sentence for the first count is completed.

As of the day of his sentencing, Wickham will therefore spend 13 years,11 months and 17 days in prison.