By Wilkie Arthur
Freelance Court Reporter
#TurksandCaicos, June 29, 2023 – Having being convicted and sentenced since February 24, 2022, Clarence Williams, who was found guilty of Indecent Assault of a male after a trial by jury before Her Ladyship Justice Tanya Lobban-Jackson, the former church bishop is getting his new trial and it may include a new charge for possible conviction.
Williams had been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; suspended from church work for two years and made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The indictment had contained two counts, but the jury could not agree on count two and were discharged from reaching a verdict in respect of that count.
In the Supreme Court on Friday 23rd June 2023 before newly appointed Judge to the TCI high court bench, his lordship Mr. Chris Selochan, the crown led by King’s Counsel Mr. Andrew Mitchell and assisted by Ms. Tamika Grant, told the court that at the re-trial it is the Crown’s intention to apply to the court to reinstate the count that the jury was not able to reach a verdict on in the first trial.
The Court of Appeal, had quashed the conviction, also discharging the sentenced and calling for a retrial in the matter in the Interest Of Justice.
Counsel for the defendant strongly petitioned the court to consider his client’s age, 77 (at the time), his resignation from all duties within the church and his possible ill health, that there should be no retrial.
The Court of Appeal resisted the submission and ordered a retrial of Clarence Wiliams.
It was between September and November of 2017, the complainant Jeff Josue Saunders was riding his bicycle in Five Cays. He stopped for a rest near to the entrance that leads to the Church of God Prophecy. There he met Bishop Clarence Williams. The accused was a Bishop of the said church. The accused was sitting in his car and a conversation ensued, during which the Bishop Williams invited Saunders to his office to collect $6 for lunch. Saunders accepted and later in the day he rode his bicycle to the Bishop’s office. There the Bishop told Saunders that he was sweaty, smelt badly and invited him to use the bathroom facility at the office. The appellant led Saunders to his sink and took a cloth/flannel from the shower nearby and proceeded to wash Saunders’ body eventually making his way to his genitalia, under the pretext that he was teaching Saunders personal hygiene.
The only other relevant matter was that Saunders was a Paranoid Schizophrenic.
The Bishop admitted that the encounter occurred, but alleged that the bathroom incident was a total fabrication.
At the appeal hearing Bishop Williams’ King’s Counsel attorney Mr. Jerome Lynch assisted by Mr. Mark Fulford, submitted that the learned trial judge erred in failing to safeguard the appellant’s right to a fair trial by refusing to sanction the Crown’s use of material that was undisclosed and should not have been put in cross-examination, by discharging the jury or at the very least telling the jury to disregard the questions as they should not have been suggested and as there was no evidence to support them.
And similarly to warn them again in her summing-up.
Counsel for the respondent admitted that prosecuting counsel did not give the defence advance disclosure of the challenged questions, but denied that the non-disclosure amounted to a material irregularity which rendered the conviction unsafe.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that two questions which were put to the appellant during cross examination by prosecuting counsel Mr. Oliver Smith, KC were improper.
The first question, prosecuting counsel put to the appellant was that he and his wife had been estranged for 20 years. Counsel submitted that was untrue and not predicated on any disclosure relating to antecedents. In the course of giving his evidence the appellant had spoken of not being aware of any complaints of a similar nature being made against him.
The second question prosecuting counsel asked was:
“Q. Weren’t you thrown out of your house by your wife for allegations of sexual abuse of other male — men?
- Definitely not, says the Bishop.
The court of appeal heard Bishop’s appeal on JANUARY 23, 2023 and delivered it’s decision on FEBRUARY 8, 2023.
The appeal was Heard Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Neville Adderley – President Ag; The Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley John – Justice of Appeal; The Honourable Mr. Justice Sir Ian Winder – Justice of Appeal; *Appearances and representation were by: Mr. Jerome Lynch KC and Mr. Mark Fulford For the Appellant.
Mr. Oliver Smith KC and Ms. Tamika Grant For the Respondent, February 24, 2022
Friday’s hearing (23rd June, 2023) Bishop Williams’ counsels were Mr. Jerome Lynch KC and Ms. Sheena Mair.
The matter was adjourned to various different dates in July, potentially August, as well as dates in September for counsels from both sides to submit applications and responses to February 24, 2022 applications and submissions.
Bishop was released on self -signed bail until his new trial, if dates and counsels are available in September.