‘No closure’ for complainant in 1983 rape case
On a pitch-black summer night more than 40 years ago, teenager Shari-Lynn Pringle accepted a lift home from a man she did not know after they attended the same wedding.
The decision has haunted her ever since. Part of the way home from Spinning Wheel nightclub, near Ocean View Golf Course, the driver pulled over in an isolated area and said they were going to have sex.
She alleges that when she refused, he told her to comply or get out of the car.
“If you know Orange Valley, if you know Barker’s Hill, what's a young lady in high heels and a dress going to do in that area?” she asked.
“Run and then chances are get raped by somebody else? It wasn't worth getting killed or getting raped by somebody else.”
Ms Pringle, then aged 19, recalled feeling like she was watching from outside the car as the man climbed on top of her while she lay on the front passenger seat.
“I didn’t consent,” she said, adding that consent obtained through a threat is no consent at all.
It was over in seconds, then she told him to take her home.
Although she immediately called her fiancé in the United States and told him what had happened — and he soothed her fears that he would no longer want to marry her — she did not go to the police.
The fiancé of Shari-Lynn Pringle recalled how distraught she was the night she told him she had been raped.
“She thought I would not want to marry her,” he told The Royal Gazette. “That was the last thing on my mind. She was the woman I fell in love with.
“Once I heard about it, I just tried to console her as best as I could. I said, ‘I love you, we’ll get through this’. We did.”
He added: “Anger doesn’t really describe how I felt. I was shocked, first and foremost, and compassionate to the fact that the woman I had asked to marry me had been involved in such a heinous and horrific act.”
The man, whom Ms Pringle went on to marry, said she told him about it over the phone the night it happened.
He said he understood why she didn’t report it to police at the time.
“We live in a different age and time now. There was no #MeToo Movement.
“There was no female empowerment going on at that time and she was a 19-year-old girl going through a traumatic situation.”
That’s another decision she came to regret. It took her more than 30 years to report the June 5, 1983, incident and even longer to decide to press charges for rape.
Once she did, she had to push for a prosecution and then watch as the matter dragged on through the court system for 3½ years.
In April this year, the Department of Public Prosecutions dropped the case because of the accused’s inability to stand trial.
Two doctors hired by the defence found that the man, now 65, had dementia.
Ms Pringle told The Royal Gazette: “It was very, very disappointing how it ended.
“This is a great example of why you should come forward as soon as you can.”
Knowing that justice through the courts is no longer possible, the 61-year-old taxi driver is going public, waiving her right to anonymity as a complainant in a criminal sexual assault case, to encourage others to go to the police as soon as possible.
“A lot of women never say anything for their whole life,” she said. “I want to empower, educate and just get the conversation started.”
Ms Pringle moved to the United States to get married after the 1983 incident and returned to live here in 1996, when she would sometimes see the man who gave her the lift.
“I think what started to infuriate me more — and maybe that's a pride thing or whatever — is that … he did not recognise or know me,” she said.
“So whenever I would see him, it would be, you know, just a blank, a blank screen. And I’m [thinking]: ‘you did XYZ’.”
Ms Pringle became a well-known activist in the community, campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights and comforting sexual-assault survivors.
As the years passed, that night continued to nag at her. She worked as the librarian at Westgate, where the man’s son was an inmate.
“That may have been one of the things that … made me think I better sort this out.”
Even more compelling was becoming aware of two other women who claimed to have been assaulted by the same man and fearing there could be more.
There is no statute of limitations for making a criminal complaint of sexual assault in Bermuda, so Ms Pringle went to the police in 2015 to give a statement, wanting to formally record what had happened but take it no further.
“I don’t know why I said, ‘No, I don’t want to press charges’,” she said. “I try not to beat myself up on that.
“I don’t think I wanted to go through the hassle of it all, not even knowing how much of a hassle it would be. Is it any wonder, looking at how it has turned out?”
Three years later, she had a rethink and returned to Hamilton Police Station. Her original statement had been lost, although it was eventually found years later, so she had to recount the events of that night again.
A transcript of an interview with detectives on October 15, 2018, records her as saying she now wanted to “set an example” for other victims and was willing for the case to “go as far as it needs to go”.
She told police then: “I just know I don’t want to die without somebody having a record of it.”
She said telling the whole story made her “feel safe”. A formal statement was signed on May 17, 2019, and a file was passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, where a decision was eventually taken not to prosecute.
The case moved forward only after Cindy Clarke, newly appointed as the DPP, reviewed the file.
The man was charged in court with rape on December 21 that year. Bermuda’s Criminal Code no longer lists an offence of rape — it is now referred to as serious sexual assault — but it did in 1983 and defendants are charged according to the law at the time of an alleged crime.
The defendant’s lawyer, Mark Pettingill, made various arguments in the Supreme Court as to why the matter should be thrown out.
Ms Clarke told the Gazette: “There were some 20 pre-trial hearings and case management hearings in this case before its conclusion.”
She entered a nolle prosequi with the court earlier this year, recording that no further action would be taken.
“I will not get into the details of this case,” the DPP said. “What I can say is that a defendant — any defendant — must be fit to stand trial.
“That means he has to be able to give instructions to his counsel and has to be able to participate in his defence.
“An abuse of process is, in layman’s terms, a situation where it may be said that a fair trial is impossible. There are many circumstances where this could arise.”
Mr Pettingill said his client had no recollection of the incident or even of Ms Pringle.
He said the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had early-onset dementia, a low IQ, the mental capacity of a 12-year-old, and didn’t understand the criminal charge against him.
“I couldn’t take instructions,” the former attorney-general said. “The only option I had was to have a jury hearing on the basis that he didn’t understand the proceedings.
“The issue with that became that the only provision [in the Criminal Code] for somebody who a jury declares is not fit to plea is to lock them up at His Majesty’s pleasure until they are fit to plea.
“Like with so many things, the law needs to be changed. It needs to be something else, that doesn’t involve incarceration of someone not convicted of any crime.”
Ms Pringle said the outcome was hard to accept, as was the length of time the case took, but she had no regrets about seeking justice.
“I don’t think you’ll ever get closure,” she said. “For less than two minutes … I have to live with it for the rest of my life. And you do live with it for the rest of your life.”
She added: “Where’s my opportunity to share my victim impact statement, if I have one?
“This will be like my victim impact statement. It will be the start of me making myself available to people who don’t know how to start this process.”
Ms Clarke said: “I agree that it is preferable for victims of sexual assault to come forward swiftly. That being said, historical cases are still able to be prosecuted.
“Those decisions will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, as each case comes with its own strengths and challenges.”
She added: “We encourage all those who are victims to continue to report to the Bermuda Police Service, no matter how much time has passed.”
Darrin Simons, the Commissioner of Police, said: “The Bermuda Police Service are committed to justice for all sexual-assault survivors.
“We take every allegation seriously and investigate thoroughly. In this case, we initiated our investigation promptly after receiving an official complaint in September 2018. We gathered evidence, interviewed witnesses and built a strong case.”
He added: “While we strive for swift justice, various factors can influence investigation timelines and court proceedings.
“Rest assured, the BPS remain unwavering in our pursuit of justice and continue to work diligently to that end.”
• Sexual assault survivors can reach Shari-Lynn Pringle through the Me Too Bermuda Facebook page. The Centre Against Abuse works to eradicate sexual assault and has a 24-hour hotline on 297-8278. To report a sexual assault, contact police or the island’s Sexual Assault Response Team at 332-8931
June 5, 1983: Shari-Lynn Pringle, 19, gets a lift home from a wedding by a man introduced to her by friends. She claims he raped her in the car on Barker’s Hill, Devonshire.
January 15, 2015: Ms Pringle reports the incident to Bermuda Police Service, but opts not to press charges.
October 27, 2018: She returns to police for an interview after she is told her original statement was lost.
February 2019: Police arrest the suspect.
May 17, 2019: A formal statement is recorded by the BPS.
June 3, 2019: A file is submitted to the Department of Public Prosecutions by police.
December 21, 2020: The man first appears in court charged with rape.
April 2024: Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, files a nolle prosequi with the court, recording that the prosecution will take no further action. She tells Ms Pringle in an e-mail that she took the decision with the assistance of a doctor’s report, and added: “The reason this case cannot proceed is because of the state of the mental incapacity of the defendant. The doctor has confirmed that he suffers from dementia and can no longer assist in his defence.”
• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. 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
