Stacy Gooding

micevan1l6

By Rehanna Ramsay Businessman, Colin Mack found notguilty of rape, assault and abduction chargesSurrounded by supportive family members, popular businessman and party promoter, Colin Mack walked out the High Court a free man yesterday after he was acquitted of allegations of rape, assault and forcible abduction of a female.Mack was facing a trial before Justice Navindra Singh and a mixed 12-member Jury at the High Court in Georgetown.According to the indictment Mack had sexual intercourse with a 19-year-old female without her consent on April 12, 2009. Initial reports indicated that the teen was abducted and taken to a house in Festival City, South Georgetown, where she was raped, assaulted and held against her will for several hours.The woman had reportedly shouted for help, but no one came to her rescue even though the houses were within close proximity. She managed to escape after a taxi driver came to her rescue.However, the businessman had maintained that the sex was in fact consensual. He was freed yesterday after a mixed twelve-member jury which was selected to oversee the trial, returned unanimous not guilty verdicts for all three of the charges.In summing up the trial, Justice Singh instructed the jury to give careful consideration to the testimonies of witnesses including that which was provided by the victim and the accused.The Judge also detailed to the panel the definition of rape, abduction and assault in accordance with the law.  He noted that in order for the accused to be found guilty of rape, the Prosecution’s evidence must prove that Mack had sexual intercourse with the female without her consent. The judge explained that consent according to law, means that the victim at the time of the act had the freedom of choice without any mental and physical pressure to have sex with Mack or not.Singh also directed the panel to use their common sense and good judgment, when considering the evidence.The panel retired after almost three hours but returned to the courtroom for further direction. The foreman told the court that the panel wanted to hear what the other female, who was charged for aiding and abetting Mack in the act had to say.However, the judge told the jury that that would not be possible since the trial has already concluded. He directed that they pay attention to the evidence provided to the court.The jury retired a second time and returned to the courtroom in less than an hour with the verdict.The foreman announced to a packed courtroom inclusive of friends, relatives of both the victim and the accused, reporters and curious spectators that they had found Mack not guilty of all three indictments.After being told that he was free to leave, Mack hurriedly left the prisoner’s dock; he hugged and kissed a female before leaving the courtroom.As the businessman fled the courthouse, he was followed by his relatives and supporters, who urged him not to say anything to the media. The complainant, who was also present at the hearing, appeared dumbfounded at the outcome of the case.  She shook her head in refusal to comment on the matter, put on her sunglasses and quietly left the courthouse.In her testimony, the woman, (now 25 years old) had related to the court that Mack had taken her to a Reggae Show and to clubs EL Latino and Blue Iguana, before she requested to go home.The woman testified that Mack took her to his Festival City residence instead, where he dragged her by her hair out of the car, carried her up a flight of stairs and raped her even though she resisted.  She also told the court that Mack had a female perform oral sex on her, before raping her. She said that that woman was charged with aiding and abetting him in the act.A medical report was subsequently tendered as evidence before the court.  The report detailed that the victim had lacerations to her vagina, swelling to the right eye and abrasions to her left elbow— injuries consistent with assault.Last Thursday, while leading his defence Mack told the court that he was innocent of the charge. He claims that he had consensual and “legal sex,” with the woman.His attorney pointed out that there were a number of contradictions between the statements which the victim provided to the High Court and the initial statements she gave to the police.However, State Prosecutor, Mercedes Thompson who presented the case in association with Lawyers, Stacy Gooding, and Diana Kaulesar also noted inconsistencies contained in Mack’s testimony.The attorney also questioned the logic of the injuries the complainant received against the backdrop of Mack’s testimony which painted a picture of two lovers having consensual sex.“Where did these injuries come from?” Thompson questioned, referring to the bruises on the victim’s body, the swelling to her right eye, and lacerations to her vaginal area.