This case involves Lopez Keno Williams, the Appellant, who was convicted of one count of Assault by Penetration against a 14-year-old complainant. The Crown's case was that the Appellant exchanged WhatsApp messages with the complainant, soliciting sexual activity in exchange for money. The complainant saved some messages and shared screenshots with a friend. Later, the Appellant allegedly sexually assaulted the complainant while she was babysitting. The Appellant denied the allegations, claiming the messages were fabricated.
Grounds of Appeal
1. Incomplete and inadequate trial transcript, missing material evidence and summation, violating the Appellant's constitutional rights to prepare defense and access records.
2. Erroneous admission of screenshot evidence without proper authentication.
3. Failure to properly direct the jury on handling WhatsApp message evidence.
4. Inadequate summation by the trial judge in marshaling evidence for the jury.
Submissions on the Effect of the Incomplete Transcript
Substantial portions of the transcript are missing, including the complainant's examination-in-chief, parts of other witnesses' testimonies, and the judge's general directions to the jury. This deprives the Appellant of the constitutional right to have the conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher court, as per Section 6(12) of the Turks and Caicos Constitution Order 2011. The missing summation prevents the Court of Appeal from assessing if the judge properly directed the jury.
Disposition
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and a retrial was ordered. The primary issue was the incomplete and inadequate trial transcript, which was found to be missing substantial parts, including the evidence of key witnesses and the judge's summation. This was determined to be a breach of the appellant's constitutional rights under sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution Order 2011. The court found that the missing portions of the transcript, particularly the examination-in-chief of the complainant and the general directions, were sufficiently serious to establish a constitutional deprivation of the appellant's rights. The other grounds of appeal were not addressed to avoid influencing the judge in the retrial.