Two men accused of raping a woman were found not guilty Tuesday after a trial by judge alone.
The men, one of whom fled Cayman, had admitted to having sexual intercourse with a woman on the same night.
In his judgment, Justice Charles Quinpointed out that the main question was whether the woman had consented. Another issue was voluntary intoxication. The Crown’s case was that the woman was so intoxicated that she did not have the capacity to consent.
The woman told the court she thought she had about eight drinks of brandy that night. She said she had worked for the first man for about three or four weeks, taking care of his children, and that they had a good rapport and had jokingly talked about sex.
Normally her employer drove her home. That night, they took a bottle of brandy with them and stopped for food andat a George Town bar, where she saw the second man. She had met him before; he had given her a ride home once or twice.
She said she remembered going to an apartment with her employer and having a conversation with him on the sofa but not what was said. She also remembered having sex with him in the bedroom.
The next thing she knew, another man was having sex with her. She said she did not consent.
She woke up around 5 a.m. andsaw her employer’s friend asleep on the sofa. She got dressed and got a lift from a passerby and told him she had been raped, but that she did not want to go to police. She told her boyfriend two men had held her up at gunpoint, but said she was not raped.
She later went to police with her aunt and told them she had been held at gunpoint. Later she told them she had been raped. She said she did not recall resisting her employer, but she was either drunk or passed out and not in any condition to consent.She said the second man had sex with her without her consent.
She later admitted to police that she had lied about the men having a gun.
The judge accepted that rape victims can feel embarrassed or ashamed and not be forthcoming about the facts.
According to her employer’s account, they were going to the apartment for one reason – to have sex. The woman had described the apartment in detail and gave a detailed account of their sexual activity. In the judge’s view, such an account could not have been given by someone who said she was so drunk she passed out.
Asked about her detailed account to police, she said she did not recall giving it.
Her employerabsconded after giving his statement and remains a fugitive.He was defended by attorney Dennis Brady.
The second man, represented by attorney Crister Brady, gave his evidence in person. He said when he arrived at the apartment, at the invitation of his friend, he heard the woman and his friend talking in the bedroom. He entered the bedroom when his friend left and had intercourse with the woman, who he said did not seem to be drunk.
Justice Quin said he found that the woman had been affected by her voluntarily induced intoxication. “I am not sure she did not consent,” he said. It may have been that she tried to revoke her consent afterwards, he said.