High Court Judge Emphasizes Role of Compensation in Rape Cases

A high court judge has stressed that compensation is not the appropriate remedy in most cases of rape.

However, said Justice Pamela Beckles, it can be “useful” in some instances, but each matter must be decided on its own facts.

“The objective of awarding compensation is, therefore, to provide financial help for the victim and should not be negatively interpreted as putting a price on the victim’s dignity,” Justice Beckles noted.

The judge’s comments came as she ordered Brandon Curwen Walcott to pay $50 000 in compensation to the woman he confessed he had unlawful sexual intercourse with six years ago.

Walcott, of Flatt Rock, St George, had pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with the woman, without her consent, on April 17, 2017.

He was represented by Senior Counsel Arthur Holder, while Principal State Counsel Olivia Davis and State Counsel Eleazar Williams prosecuted.

“The issue of monetary compensation was raised in this matter and whereas – and the court wants it stressed – the court recognises that monetary compensation is not the appropriate remedy in most rape cases, it can be useful in some cases and each case would have to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances,” the judge explained.

Counselling

The court noted rape was one of the “most traumatic and horrifying experiences an individual may ever have to go through”.

“And while monetary compensation cannot take away the emotional pain and horrors associated with the rape, and cannot undo the harm that has been caused, it can be used on the rehabilitation of the victim, in that it can help the victim to regain their life by payment for counselling treatment and anything else that may be needed to move on from the experience,” she said.

Justice Beckles added that the complainant had indicated, through her attorney, that she was willing to accept compensation.

The court, the judge added, was satisfied that Walcott had the financial means to pay it within a reasonable time frame.

The judge noted she had considered the nature and gravity of the offence; the prevalence of such offences in society; the effect the rape had on the woman and that it had exposed her to sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.