Sex Assault Trial: One Convicted, Three Cleared
Four men — aged 19 to 21 — have been on trial in the Supreme Court on charges of the serious sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl, and the jury returned a verdict this afternoon [May 14].
Three of the defendants were acquitted, however Kristopher Gibbons, who was 21 at the time, was found guilty of sexual assault.
During the trial the Court heard the victim was sexually assaulted on the grounds of the Somerset home in July 2013, after having been supplied with alcohol. The incident took place in a tent that had been set up in anticipation of Cup Match.
The victim’s friend, who is also 14, said that she and her friend had been taken to the man’s home where they were supplied with rum from a bottle, from which all six persons drank.
Once the bottle had been emptied, the witness said that she left but the victim remained. The witness said that after she left, her friend was brought out to her crying and they caught the bus to a relatives house.
The jury went out to deliberate at around 10.30 today, and the returned with the verdict at around 3.00pm. Gibbons will be sentenced at a later date and was lead from the Courtroom into a waiting prison van.
Read More About
Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News
Juries in Bermuda are pathetic!
watchaa saayin’…Bermudians are pathetic..? and 12 people agree with you….lol
PLEASE Tell me I’m reading this wrong! ONLY in Bermuda you have a sex assault case trailed with 4 defendents and only one is convicted. I am wondering if the jury had been reading the same case as I am??? Makes NO sense to me! Either all 4 should have been convicted or all 4 released. And I’m more than sure he wasn’t the main suspect!
unless you sat in every court session, don’t you think the Jury would be Privy to evidence that You may not be…jus sayin’
You and people who think like you are totally wrong in your thinking. You should be more concerned if ALL accused parties are found guilty in every case. Just because you are accused for merely being present when a crime occurs doesn’t mean you are guilty.
The fact that when you have multiple people accused and only one or two are found guilty can be a good thing. It means that the jury is actually listening to the evidence presented against each individual and judging it on its own merit. If everyone was found guilty all of the time, that would actually be a bad thing because it would show that the jury is painting them all with the same brush and assuming that everyone accused is guilty just because they are accused together-i.e. guilty by association-when that may not be the case.
This verdict proves the jury listened and considered the evidence against each party and deemed that there wasn’t enough evidence against the men acquitted, but enough evidence against the man convicted.
The day we have blanket verdicts-all must be innocent or all must be guilty-is a bad thing. Think about if it was one of your loved ones who was accused and was assumed to be guilty just because one of the parties was-wouldn’t you want them to be treated as an individual and not a group?
They may not all be ‘not guilty’ but again the fact that that the jury considered all evidence presented against them indivually on its on merit instead of collectively is a GOOD thing-THINK ABOUT IT!!!
If people stand by and watch a crime being committed – especially when that crime includes the abuse of another human being (rape being the absolute worst) – they too should be held accountable for doing nothing. It’s disgusting behavior. They are old enough to know better. The attitude of this country re. sexual crimes against women is appalling.
@Wtf. Wrong! The problem in this island is that people go on trial together for one crime, unlike the US and other countries where people are tried separately. Only one person could be guilty, but people automatically lump them together and assume they are all guilty. I sit in on numerous trials, and have often formed my own opinion (like the jury does) on who is innocent or guilty. I have seen many cases where I am convinced (not saying I’m right) that one of the parties is innocent but they get jointly convicted. I don’t know if we do it as a cost cutting measure, but joint trials don’t seem very fair to me.
One thing people have to remember is that a jury has to be absolutely convinced of guilt before passing their verdict. If they have any reasonable doubt, they must pass a not guilty verdict. It is not up to the defendant to prove their innocence, it is up to the prosecution to prove their guilt.
By the way, the jury is not “READING the same case as you are”. They are sitting in a courtroom and HEARING and SEEING the case. They have much more information than you, they view photos and listen to witnesses unlike you reading this on a monitor. They see the people’s faces, body language, etc. You are not privy to all of this, therefore you cannot pass judgment.
You obviously don’t know anything about law.
Most countries worldwide try multiple defendants for crimes commited “in company” which is what this was.
The one that was convicted was could have been the only one that actually assulted the victim the other 3 just there. And that’s why the others were found not guilty
Another great example of how f***** up the legal system in Bermuda is. SMFH!!!
I don’t understand.
Please feel free to tell us what a ‘Juries” are.
Your friends. Neighbors. Relatives.
Dont just go off what the paper says.
Was there no charge of serving alcohol to a minor? I’m sure there is some charge somewhere on the books for assisting someone in a crime whether it be simply being there and letting it happen. Maybe it’s the prosecutor’s fault for having the other three up on the wrong charges but they should not have walked!
BDA is far too small for a jury system..must be 100 percent non-bias!bda is too small..everyone is related,befriended or aquinted with one another..how difficult can it really be to sway the mind of one jury member if they are known to you…have a thorough screening process and do it via video link with 11 people you reside abroad…guaranteed the convictions would skyrocket…
On the contrary, Bermuda will most certainly provide a jury of peers in the strongest sense of the word ‘peers’. They can only go off the evidence provided and witness statements. Prosecution needs to build a better case for there to be better justice in Bermuda…
This makes no sense.
Why do you want a higher rate of convictions? That doesn’t mean more justice is served it means more people go to prison. Many of them who could be innocent.
Also, video link where? We are a brittish jurisdiction? Brittan is four hours ahead, how does that make sense to you?
Also, I can tell by the ignorance in your comment that you’ve never been on a jury or seen jury selection, so just a little education for you. The prosecutors and defence fight over who gets to be on the jury, they look into any possible connections the jury memeber may have to the accused, a witness, or the injured.
The last part of your statement is vastly exaggerated. They ‘fight’ over who gets to be on the jury and ‘look into any connection’? In most cases, unless you as a juror speaks up and states your connection or the accused notes that you are a neighbour he got into a fight with, or an old teacher who always said he would amount to no good, or a former co-worker who hated his guts, you’d end up on the jury with no opposition whatsoever.
How many mistrials have we had in Bermuda because of the opposite-the accused had a friend on the jury and no-one knew? Quite a few times! I can recall a case in recent memory where the accused was spotted having a casual conversation with a juror and also a case where a prosecution witness, a police officer, had a friend on the jury and a mistrial was declared. Therefore to say that any great research is done into any connections and that they ‘fight’ is vastly exaggerated at best-most times they barely make much effort.
*aquainted*
Time to move to the system they have in South Africa.
Omg… Wtf?
*facepalm*
Omg… Wtf?
*facepalm*
You been the brittish system that we are on right?
Your last sentence makes zero sense, Rayki Emery.
*acquainted*
What people have to realize is just because the police arrest someone, that doesn’t automatically make them guilty. Did all of you passing judgment actually sit in court and hear ALL of the evidence? Or are you only going by a small portion of what you read in the media?
Exactly!
Bermudians (and yes I am one) can be a narrow-minded bunch. It’s ridiculous to think that just because a group is accused of a crime it means everyone in that group actually is guilty.
Suppose I came across a scene where a group of guys had busted a storefront window and were stealing jewelry from a jewelry store. Just as I arrive, the police come as they were tipped off by a silent alarm. As I am at the scene, I’m arrested along with everyone else and accused in court along with everyone else.
When it gets to court, surveillance proves I just wandered across the scene and I am the only one who doesn’t have an armful of stolen jewels nor are my prints inside the jewelry store. Surveillance shows the others breaking in and they have jewelry on them when the police come and their prints are all over everything in the store. Naturally, I am found ‘not guilty’ and they are found ‘guilty’. Would any of you say the jury made a mistake? No-they evaluated the evidence against us individually although we were charged collectively.
That is a simplistic example but shows the point I am trying to make. If any of you were in a similar situation you would want the same consideration or would you prefer for the jury to assume that just because you’re accused in a group that everyone in the group is guilty? That’s ridiculous!
Unlike. U reading about this case u were not sitting in on the case as a juror so all u know is what the ”media” has lead u to believe ! Its so much more that goes in to a case then wats in the news. #closedminded
…grammar police….?
********* Jury…..this system is ***** *******………**** OFF its hurts!
IT HURTS…… And its **********!
There is much more to the story and yes it IS true that the jurors would be privy to information that the media isn’t aware of OR are not allowed to print. Bermuda IS such a small place….word of advice; …be careful what you do because sometimes “THAT” could be the very thing held against you when you try and seek justice for somwthing else
*something
Free Him … Keep ya Head Gibbons….
Many a person has gone to the Gallows because the jury was tainted.
If they tried that with my daughter they all would be dealt with.
Good or bad jury system…?fact of the matter is that 3 were found to be not guilty..those 3 guys have been on remand (maximum security)at westgate for 8 months I believe..so what I’m curious about is what kind of compensation they will receive..if any..
I hope he gets the same treatment when he goes to jail ! Let’s see how he likes something forced on him! He might come out missing a few teeth. We will all know what happened then!