Teen convicted of sex offence with 12-year-old
A 19-year-old Sandys man was convicted yesterday in the Supreme Court of having sex with a minor.
Michael Lee Keesee, 19, of Pink House Lane was found guilty of having unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 14. He was remanded in custody to await a presentencing report and ordered to reappear for mention on September 1. Keesee could face 20 years imprisonment.
The defendant?s mother, grandmother, and girlfriend sat in the gallery throughout the two-day trial. As the jury read the verdict after two hours of deliberation ? ten guilty, two not guilty ? his mother broke down in tears.
Keesee remained calm after the verdict was delivered, but kept turning around to look at his family.
Prior to jury deliberations yesterday, a friend of the complainant (who cannot be named for legal reasons), who was with her the night she had sexual intercourse with Keesee, told the court that she heard Keesee ask another man for a condom.
The court heard the complainant and two friends were on Long Bay Beach, Somerset, with Keesee and two other men.
The friend said that Keesee and the complainant walked off alone, then about 20 minutes later they returned to the group.
On the first day of the trial on Monday, the 13-year-old complainant, who was 12 at the time of the offence, took the stand and said that she had met Keesee at a friend?s house in January, 2003, and had sex with him the following month, telling him she was ?12 going 13?.
She said the defendant urged her to keep the relationship secret.
On the night the couple engaged in intercourse, the complainant said she and two friends were on Long Bay Beach because they wanted to ?get out of the house?.
When she and her friends were leaving the beach they saw the defendant walking towards them. After going for a walk with her alone, Keesee asked if she wanted to have sex.
The complainant told the court that she felt a ?little weird? while they were having intercourse and that it hurt a little bit.
She said she told her teacher about the encounter a few days later.
The teacher informed the complainant?s mother that her daughter was sexually active, some three months later, the mother testified.
During cross examination, the complainant told the court that she omitted information from her Police statement because she was embarrassed and assumed some aspects would have been common knowledge.
Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill had questioned the complainant on a number of contradictions between her Police statement and her testimony.
The complainant told the court that she did not see the defendant after they had sex. However, in her Police statement she said that she rode with the defendant ?most Saturdays? for about two months after they had sex.
While on the stand she said she only rode in his car twice.
She said that she lied to Police about the intercourse hurting her because she was embarrassed.
In closing arguments yesterday, Crown counsel Oonagh Vaucrossen told the jury: ?Keep in mind she was a 12-year-old girl and he was 18 at the time. What could an 18-year-old possibly have in common with a 12-year-old??
Mr. Pettingill told the jury in his closing argument: ?This case/story is like Pinocchio?s nose. The story keeps getting longer and longer.
?At every stage the story has changed and grown.?
In his summary of the case, Chief Justice Richard Ground pointed out to the jury the inconsistencies in the complainant?s testimony, Police statement, and preliminary inquiry.
He also reminded the jury of the condom evidence and asked: ?Why would he (Keesee) ask for a condom unless he was going to use it??
Mr. Justice Ground added that it was important for the jury to consider the complainant?s demeanour during her testimony. He said, the complainant was confident, cheeky, and used the defence?s description ? ?a piece of work? ? and said it was up for the jury to decide whether her evidence was true.
Mr. Justice Ground ordered a social inquiry report and remanded Keesee in custody until a mention date of September 1.
He added that he did not see any legal basis for an appeal.