Defence claims victim was the predator; prosecution says attack was premeditated
By Latrishka Thomas
Money, alleged manipulation, and a meet-up at a desolate beach culminated in an attack that left a gay man fighting for his life – but was it attempted murder or self-defence?
That’s the question a jury will face today after hearing opposing stories from the prosecution and defence in a trial between a reverend’s son and a man 10 years his senior.
The incident, which occurred on January 6, 2020, at Dove Trail in Yeptons, involves a youth who was then 19 years old and a homosexual man who was 29 years old at that time.
According to reports, the accused owed the victim $100 which he had promised to repay but failed to do, leading to plans for the alleged intimate encounter.
The tryst resulted in the accused using a kitchen knife to inflict injuries to the victim.
Medical evidence documented multiple injuries, including a life-threatening 10-centimeter laceration near the victim’s carotid artery, plus wounds to his back, thigh, calf, shoulder, and elbow.
The accused sustained minor injuries as well during the scuffle.
The trial – which centres not on whether the complainant was injured but rather if the accused intended to kill or wound him — commenced over a week ago, and concluded yesterday with closing arguments from both the prosecution and defence.
“Nonsense” and “lies” were what the prosecution called the defence’s story while the defence maintained that the complainant was a “predator” who took advantage of a teenager and was attacked in self-defence when he forced the accused to engage in sexual acts.
Prosecutor Paulio Williams opened his closing argument by urging the jury to set aside any bias or sympathy and objectively evaluate the evidence.
He emphasized the importance of assessing witness demeanour for credibility, noting that the accused appeared “very dodgy” during testimony and cross-examination.
He characterized the accused as a manipulator motivated by desires for money and a “soft life”, who exploited the complainant’s sexual orientation, and even told him that he loved him.
Williams detailed how the accused pressured the complainant into meeting him that night, and remained adamant even after the complainant tried to cancel, which indicated premeditation.
According to the Crown Counsel, the accused’s choice of the deserted Dove Trail beach, a location without lights or houses, also showed that he planned the attack.
The prosecution added that further motive stemmed from the accused’s annoyance that the complainant hadn’t purchased requested items online or fulfilled other promises.
In addition, Williams said that the accused had many opportunities to walk away but, instead, decided to slash the gay man’s throat.
The prosecutor urged the jury of six women and three men to consider which story was more believable and to “pick sense out of nonsense”.
He highlighted the wounds on the complainant’s back as evidence he was turned away during the attack.
Williams also emphasized that the accused had accepted wrongdoing, questioning: “So why are we in a trial?”
He answered his own question, stating the accused wanted “to appeal to your emotions and insult your intelligence”.
Williams further challenged the defence’s account, noting that the accused’s claim about the complainant holding his neck while unbuckling pants was contradicted by the accused’s own later statement that the complainant wore beach shorts.
Defence counsel Michael Archibald focused heavily on the 10-year age difference between the two men in his closing argument.
He likened the complainant to “a predator” who “groomed” the young boy in the hope of getting sexual favours.
Archibald referenced text messages showing the accused identified as heterosexual, explaining that his client entertained the complainant because he was “a young man unsure of his sexuality” – confused and willing to try.
The defence attorney described his client as “beggy-beggy”, explaining this as typical teenage behaviour — wanting things parents wouldn’t provide.
However, Archibald denied manipulation, comparing the relationship to any heterosexual couple exchanging gifts and money.
He argued that the complainant, who had been waiting since 2018 to have sexual intercourse with the accused, wanted it so badly that he intended to take it at any cost, especially given the money owed.
While acknowledging his client used a kitchen knife to injure the complainant, Archibald maintained the intention wasn’t murder but self-defence after the accused changed his mind and was being touched inappropriately despite voicing his change of heart.
When questioned about how the accused acted in self-defenceagainst rapeif hewas supposed to be the “giver”, Archibald responded that “it could have gone both ways”.
Justice Tunde Bakre will summarize the case for the jury today before their deliberation. The jury must choose between three possible verdicts: guilty of attempted murder, guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or not guilty by way of self-defence.
About The Author
