No evidence to support lawyer’s comments
Much has been written recently about the deplorable conduct of defence lawyer Charles Richardson, who has been rightly castigated for his cowardly, heartless attack on a 13-year-old victim of statutory rape as he endeavoured to get a lighter sentence for his client.
Mr Richardson stated in a subsequent interview he was merely following instructions from his client and was duty-bound to present “evidence” before the courts.
It is quite evident that Mr Richardson’s definition of “evidence” is not consistent with the criteria used by the very courts he practises in on a regular basis.
As a consequence, he made a number of statements that not only insulted and brought the young child’s character into question but he did so without presenting any supporting evidence whatsoever — at least according to respective news accounts.
Those statements are as follows:
“Young women actively pursue older men and they lie to them. He was led to believe she was older than she was, but it’s not a defence because of her age.”
He told the court the victim had also been in contact with other men, but Chez Rogers was the only one who had been identified.
These are serious allegations and accusations that are disturbing. However, what is most disturbing is that Mr Richardson could make them in a court of law without what appears to be not any substantiating evidence, and do so with impunity.
That cannot be right, as in the absence of text messages, e-mails, voicemails or Facebook exchanges, etc, what was stated was hearsay and came from a man who admitted to statutory rape.
That cannot be right, as such serious accusations — especially against a child victim — should not be allowed in court without supporting evidence to back them up.
Unfortunately, this seems to be common practice among some in the legal fraternity and needs to be addressed if we as a society wish to protect our young children who have been victimised.
Mr Richardson then went from the sublime to the ridiculous, audaciously stating: “Maybe there should be some statute against young women who do this.”
My response to that incredulous suggestion is that maybe it’s time for a statute that prevents lawyers, or anyone for that matter, making such damning accusations without supporting evidence to substantiate those claims.
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.
Thomas predicts exodus of unskilled workers
One of two quarantine breach cases closed
Cecil G. Smith (1935-2020)
New owner takes over temping agency
From Elton to a life on island
Low rainfall affects summer crop harvest
Take Our Poll