Trio protest Chief Justice’s office over Henry Greene rape probe decision

Mar 31, 2012 News

– “sad day for women in Guyana”

Former Lecturer at the University of Guyana and Kaieteur News columnist Freddie Kissoon, along with Social Activist Mark Benschop and APNU member Malcolm Harripaul yesterday staged a protest outside of Chief Justice Ian Chang’s Office.
The trio was protesting what they say is the biased decision which the Chief Justice gave in the rape investigation involving embattled Commissioner of Police Henry Greene.

From left Freddie Kissoon, Mark Benschop and Malcolm Harripaul

Kissoon said they are protesting because Thursday afternoon’s judgment by Chang can only be seen as one of the biggest judicial mistakes in the country. Kissoon said that the pattern in more than a hundred years in Guyana, around the Caribbean and even worldwide, is for the police to charge and “for you to have your day in court to defend your name.”
“This was done for myself …Mr. Benschop and for other prominent persons in Guyana, why is Henry Greene any exception for this?” Kissoon stated.
According to the columnist, this judgment is taking human rights violation down a terrible pathway. Kissoon said this is not just the abuse of the rights of a woman, but also the abuse of a nation. He said that he is insisting that Greene should be charged based on the evidence that the DPP has and let him have his day in court.
Kissoon said that if the police are prevented from charging people, then the rich and powerful would make use of this route which Greene has taken. Given this judgment, Kissoon has called on the Leader of the Opposition and opposition parties to call for Chang’s resignation. In the interest of justice, Kissoon said that an emergency meeting should be held with the parties and ask for Justice Chang to be sent back to normal judicial duties.
Social Activist, Mark Benschop was also harshly critical of the ruling.
He said that while the Chief Justice has his right to his decision, citizens also share their right which is their constitutional right to protest peacefully against his decisions.
Benschop said that he agreed with the recommendation of the DPP that a rape charge be instituted against Greene. But he further told Kaieteur News that he isn’t surprised that the Chief Justice has made this ruling. “We thought it was better for the court to decide that during the trial…it’s a sad day for women…”
Chief Justice Ian Chang on Thursday ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ recommendation that Police Commissioner Henry Greene be charged with rape was irrational. Chang read out his 65 page decision to a packed courtroom consisting of lawyers, reporters and members of women’s rights groups.
A few weeks ago the Chief Justice had directed the DPP to show cause why a Writ or Order of Certiorari should not be issued to bring up to the honourable court, and quash the advice tendered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, given on or about the third day of February, 2012 to the Commissioner of Police (ag), Leroy Brummel and the Assistant Commissioner of Law Enforcement, Seelall Persaud, or either of them, to institute a charge of rape against Greene.
Secondly, an Order or Rule Nisi of Prohibition directed to the Commissioner of Police (ag), Leroy Brummel and Assistant Commissioner of Law Enforcement, Seelall Persaud, to show cause why a Writ or Order of Prohibition should not be issued preventing them from acting on the said advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or from instituting the said charge of rape against the applicant, on the ground that the said advice by the Director of Public Prosecutions is irrational, unreasonable, unfair, unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect.
In December last year, a 33-year-old mother of two alleged that she was raped by Greene after she had sought his assistance in a police matter that she was engaged in.
After weeks of investigations conducted by independent investigators from the Jamaica Constabulary Force and amidst much speculation and anxiety, the Director of Public Prosecution Shalimar Ali-Hack advised that Green be charged with rape.
But the Chief Justice in his ruling, said that “while the complainant did set out circumstances which unequivocally point to Greene’s commission of the offence of rape against her, it strains one’s credulity to believe that she, succumbing to verbal pressure and any threatening conduct by Greene, came out of a car and entered the hotel room without seeking to run away or escape from Greene, even though he had expressly made clear to her his intention of having sexual intercourse with her”.
Also taken into consideration in the Chief Justice’s ruling were statements given by the two persons at the hotel. According to the owner of the Hotel, Maxwell Thom, Greene and the woman entered the room calmly and after they entered the room he didn’t hear anything which suggested that she was protesting.
Chang said that after the two left the hotel and were driving in the car, Greene was talking to her as though they were lovers. The Chief Justice said that the question must be asked “why would the applicant soon after assaulting and having forcible intercourse with the complainant speak to her as though they were lovers?”
More questions were raised, when Greene asked if she was hungry. According to the complainant in her statement, Greene then drove to Regent Street opposite Guyoil Gas Station where persons were selling food. At his request, the woman exited the vehicle and went to find out what was being sold. She returned and told Greene that “Chowmein and pepper pot” were being sold. According to her statement, she said that she went back purchased the two boxes of food and returned to the vehicle.
Chief Justice said that surely her conduct in this “ex post facto” event can hardly be viewed as the conduct of a distressed victim of violence and rape while Greene’s conduct can hardly be viewed as that of a person who had just violated her.
According to the woman’s court documents, Greene subsequently drove to her home, issuing threats to her life in the process. The complainant stated that Greene told her that he would know if she visits any doctor in the country. Even after the night that the complainant alleges that she was raped, the woman met Greene and accepted money from him.
Further, Chang said that while it may be true that the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s story and the admissibility of the contents of the statements of other witnesses could have been adequately dealt within the criminal trial process, the court finds that the circumstances of the case were very exceptional.
Moreso, he said, it required an insightful analysis of unusual circumstantial evidence on the part of the DPP, which was not done, and if done, to pass the realistic prospect of conviction test. Chang said this case was one which required the application of the “evidentiary test” by the DPP before advising prosecution against the applicant.