Robert Ross Bellot, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for unlawful sexual connection with an eight-year-old girl, has successfully appealed his conviction.
An Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that his conviction and sentence be quashed and a retrial be convened.
Bellot was convicted in January 2010 by high court judge Justice Brian Cottle and appeared at a court of appeal hearing at the Parliament building on Monday where his lawyer Dawn Yearwood-Stewart put forth submissions.
Among several other grounds presented in her written submissions, Yearwood-Stewart had argued that the judge had not properly conducted a voir dire; in that, the complainant and another key child witness had not satisfied an oath test which would have basically bind them to tell the truth.
She said that when it was indicated that both children could take the oath (swear on the Bible), they both affirmed. Yearwood-Stewart argued that the level of vocabulary contained in the affirmation may not have been understood by the witnesses.
“The learned trial judge did not touch the nature of the oath at all,” she told the court.
The Justices of appeal however did not rule in favor of this argument but allowed the appeal on three other grounds which were not discussed.
The judges also ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions Gene Pestaina, would decide the outcome of the matter as it regards to a trial. Bellot will remain in custody pending an application at the high court.
The maximum penalty for such offense is 14 years behind bars.
The defendant had also been tried for indecent assault.
The DPP prosecuted the matter.
How sad that we are not informed of the grounds on which the Appeal Judges ordered a retrial. It was no less than the Chief Justice who said a month ago that judges should state the bases of their decisions.
I am not here defending any rapist or criminal for that matter but I did find that case a bit not right. If indeed Ross did molest the child then he deserves the full force of the law but knowing him as I did for years, I found the story a difficult one to believe. It would have been nice though, to know on what grounds the justices came to their decision.
i really don’t know why Dominicans who do not know the facts or the law speak like they do. Before you place all these comments online do some research about how a child has to take an oath in court. Just a thought
Innocent until proven guilty but if a man feel he lucky and interfere with my eight year old he had better feel safer in jail, he would not want an appeal
i couldn’t agree with you more. He would be counting his lucky stars that he was sent to jail instead of having to face my type of justice.
Where is the justice for the child? She is too young to know the difference, but they did not say that all the witnesses were wrong or she like. There is choice for a reason. I hope that she knows how to use such skills when her matter comes up.
Redz if it was a member of your family or a close friend you would not be saying this. I truly understand your sentiments, all you know when the trial is complete this time, the young man may still be in jail.
That’s how the court system works, remember, it is man who invented, created, and cut it to destroy our own lives.
Eight year old to take oath? These kids are minors. These kids must have been traumatized and then they should be subjected to oath? These lawyers are sick.
I wish they loose that appeal so the offender can get the maximum of 14 years.
REad.. .the appeal they got gave them justice to a re-trial.. they won their appeal. So there is gonna be a re trial of the case in a court lower than the appeal court but equivalent to the High Court of Justice. The are few reasons why a court of appeal would order a re-trial and it could be either a fault in the evidence presented in the case at the time of high court. Once the fault is recognized and there isn’t precendence in the court of appeal, they’re allowed to order a re-trial, which means, there could be a slight higher chance that if the defense comes good they could win their case.
This court of appeal is just sick. Whether the child swears or affirms should not make a difference. That silly court of appeal should stop acting as a mercy committee. The child life is now messed up for life. I pray to God that one day these sick behaviours reach the door steps of the lawyers who assist these sick people.
The report said that the ruling was not based on the issue but three other issues, please read, understand then comment
I could not agree more. I have children and there is no way I would be able to defend a rapist/child molester and come home in good conscience and look at my baby girl like all is well.
I guess this is why you are not a lawyer.
Wow
is’t me or else
this is a high level of ignorance….my goodness
you should blame the parents for this
they are dressing their young girls like rats not any rat,gutter rats(letting TV dictate your children style of dressing)
Take back control of the home
Wasting a bunch of time watching American rubbish soaps, you don’t expect this to happen.Come on peoples
nowadays you don’t know who to trust,especially in DA, they will fabricate something on you just because you don’t have time to stand on the road side to bad talk others with them,they give you all kind of name out here,
they see you speaking to someone, you and the person have something,sick society
(you speak like the street you dress like think like the street)
Street behavior