Appeal Court to hand down decision in Hetsberger rape case on July 24

Jun 29, 2019 News

Initially scheduled for ruling on Wednesday, the matter of the State v Andre Hetsberger, who is appealing a 25-year jail sentence for raping an underage girl, has now been deferred until Wednesday, July 24.

Andre Hetsberger

In 2016, a 12-member jury found Hetsberger guilty of the crime, and he was thereafter sentenced to the term of imprisonment by High Court Judge Navindra Singh.
The offence was committed on October 17, 2014 and came to light after the girl, then 13, had alleged that Hetsberger had sexually molested her.
Hearing the appeal were Chief Justice Roxane George and Justices Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud at the Court of Appeal in Kingston, Georgetown. During a hearing in May, Hetsberger’s lawyer Dexter Todd had argued that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.
Added to that, Todd argued that the trial Judge (Navindra Singh) admitted evidence by the prosecution which was highly prejudicial to his client, and more so, refused to admit evidence which supported his client’s defence. The lawyer further argued that Justice Singh failed to put his client’s case adequately, or at all, to the jury for consideration.
In light of these, Todd insisted that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported with regard to the evidence, and that the sentence was unduly served. In this regard, he is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside and/or reverse the decision of the High Court. In addressing the court, Todd said that the trial Judge erred in certain findings.
For one, Todd pointed out that a medical certificate, which indicated that the victim showed no signs of penetration was tendered into evidence by the prosecution. On the other hand, he said that there was the victim’s account of what transpired, in that, she was penetrated. According to Todd, the victim’s testimony was inconsistent with the medical certificate, and as such, the trial judge should have relied on the latter.
But State Prosecutor Natasha Backer was in disagreement. She argued that the victim’s testimony cannot be discredited since the Sexual Offence Act allows for evidence of such nature. According to the prosecutor, it is possible for someone who was sexually penetrated to not show signs of injuries.
In relation to the sentence, Todd contended that it was severe. In support of this argument, he made a valid point with the fact that no probation report was prepared on his client’s background. However, Prosecutor Backer told the court that she was not aware that a probation report could have caused Hetsberger to receive a lighter sentence.