Subject:FINAL APPEAL COURT RULING ON PAUL STEPHENS NO 1
State of Qatar
Supreme Judicial Council
Department of Crimes, Legal Punishments and Requitals
Appeal No. 1061/2012
Police case No. 7664/2008- Capital
Issued in the name of H.H Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of the
State Of Qatar, under the presidency of the Justice Mr. Ibrahim Saleh Al Nasf, the head of the bench;
the participation of the Justice Mr. Eissa Ahmed Al Nassr, the member of the bench;
the participation of the Justice Mr. Mahmoud Mohammed Ahmed, the member of the
the attendance of Mr. Khaled Shafeeq, the representative of Prosecution; and the attendance of•Mr. Mahmoud Hamdi, the Court Clerk in the Appeal No. 1061/2012 filed by the appellant : Paul Andrew Stephens
against the appellee:
challenginq the Preliminarv Award No. I of 2009 — CriminalAfter having reviewed the documents and heard the verbal trial and legal
handling; where the facts of the case as understood and got convinced by the court from all the documents, investigations and trial sessions in this regard, can be summarized that the appellant Paul Andrew Stephens, exploited the absence of the
victim Jeehan Arina Willams from the country for the circumstances of
He came at night to their house in his capacity as their family friend e at the work place of the victim’s mother who had asked him to meet the requirements of her three daughters during her absence from the country. When the sisters of the victim went to bed and the servant to his room outside, he and the victim sat talking each other. When the victim entered the room of her mother and lied on the bed to watch TV, the appellant entered the room, closed the door behind him and told her don’t let me down (don’t disappoint me)’ being preparation to have sex with her. He got into the bed, lifted her pants, removed her dress, climbed on her and inserted his penis in her vagina and started intercourse with her for a while. Then he withdrew before spilling the semen. He was knowing that she hasn’t reached sixteen years old. In the next day the victim informed the school management and their neighbor, as per the telephone call from her mother, she took her to the hospital where she was subject to medical checkups. It is found from the report of the forensic medicine that a part of her maidenhood has been newly torn and the incident was reported to the police.
This conclusion has been confirmed by the narration of the victim and what is adnked by the appeilänt in the public prosecution. It was also
testified by Ann Mary Lois and Rakwil Grifita in the investigations of the public prosecution and before the court. The same was testified by Philip Andrew and Ahmed Ali Hässan Saleh Saad. It was also confirmed by Dr. Nivine Abdul Majeed and Dr. Alaa Yousef Mahmoud before the court, as it was established in the forensic report of the Criminal Laboratory.
The victim Jeehan Arina Willams, during evidencing, narrated before the public investigations that the accused was the friend of her family. At 9 0′ clock on the day of incident she was lying on the bed in the rooms of her mother. The accused came, closed the door, removed her dress and his dress, did sexual intercourse with her forcedly, inserted his penis in her vagina and broke her maidenhood. When she went to the school she informed of the incident and left the matter to her mother. The appellant Paul Andrew Stephens, admitted during the investigations of the public
prosecution that he had gone to the house of the mother of the victim, had intercourse with the victim Jeehan with her consent and not by force. When the victim went to sleep, he stood on the step then the victim came to him, and they talked each other, She put the tights off and entered to her room.
room. He went to the room of her mother to sleep and after that the victim came to him and he was sleeping on the bed. She tumed the TV on and switched to a sex
films channel. He told her not to watch such films but she put the lights off and he did sexual intercourse with her and caused to remove her maidenhood, He hasn’t spilled his semen in her and he is sorry for what happened.
Ann Mary Lois, the mother of the victim testified in the investigations of the public prosecution that she was on the day of incident out of the country. The school management called her and told that her daughter was subject to sexual harassment by the accused. The victim had informed the school principle of the incident. Accordingly, she called her neighbor and told her to pick the daughter from the school and take her to a doctor. After two days she came to Doha and the victim told her that at 9 0′ clock on the day of incident the accused came to her and told her (don’t let me down). He took her by force to the bed, removed her underwear when she was objecting him. She couldn’t defend him due to his huge body and she was scared. He put his penis by force in her vagina and continued having sex with her from five to ten minutes and then he left her and went away. She went to her room she was crying. and in severe fear. In the next day she went to the school and informed the school principle what happened.
Rakwil Grivita testified during the investigations of the public prosecution that she had received a telephone call from the management of the school where the victim studies, in the morning. They told her to call the father or mother of the victim who were out of the country. They also told her to inform the servant of the victim not to wash the bed sheet and the dresses of the victim. She indeed called the mother of the victim and told her to call the school. Then the mother of the victim called her and told her that the school management informed her that the victim had subjected to rape by the accused. She told her to go to the school and take her daughter to Qatar
Medical Centre to conduct a test on her.
She went to the school and the victim told her that in the day of the incident she was in the room of her mother watching tv while she was lying on the bed. Then the accused came to her. closed the door and told her (dont let me down), then he closed the TV, climbed on her, removed her pants and did something with her and went away. She added that she took the victim to Qatar Medical Centre. The doctor at the Centre refused to conduct the test on the victim and then she took her to Hamad Hospital where the police was informed.
FINAL RULING PAUL STEPHENS NO 2
The victim was referred to the forensic doctor. She went with one of the officers and her husband to the house of the victim’s mother to keep the things which she had asked the servant not to wash.
It is established from the report of the forensic medicine that the victim was in a very good health, fully alter and mentally intact. Having inspected the maidenhood, found a new and incomplete tearing not reaching to the vagina walls against No. 7 of the watch dial with reddish, bleeding, swelling and paining edges. A bruising also found against the dial No. 3. The incomplete tearing found at the maidenhood indicates the incomplete insertion of the penis or use of fingers.
The forensic lab report states all the samples taken from the victim and her dresses do not include the traces of any sperm.
The photocopy of thé passport for the victim shows that she was born on February 1994.
The public prosecution after the investigation referred the appellant for trial, because on 16/11/2008 he had sexual intercourse with Jeehan Arina Willams without her consent and using force when she hadn’t reached sixteen years old. He was knowing about it and he had undertaken her care. He entered to the room of her mother who was absent, closed the door and did intercourse with her as shown in the documents. It referred the appellant to the criminal court and urged to punish him as per the articles 1/1, 279/1-2 and 280/2-1 of the penal code.
The accused attended the hearings held for trial accompanied by his lawyer. The court heard the statements of I) Ann Mary Lois 2) Rakwil Grivita 3) Philip Andrew 4)
Lt Ahmed Ali Hassan Saleh Saad 5) Dr. Nivine Abdul Majeed and 6) Dr. Aaa Yousef
Ann Mary Lois, the mother of the victim testified that the school management called her when she was out of the country and told her that her daughter had informed the principal that she was subject to sexual harassment by the accused. Accordingly, she called her neighbor and requested her to take her daughter to a doctor. When she returned to Qatar the victim told her that at 9 0′ clock night on the day of incident the accused entered her room and told her (don’t let me down) and took her forcedly to the bed, removed her underwear. She was scared of him and he put his penis in her vagina, then he left her and went away. Then she went to her room and in the next day she told the school principal what happened. She added that she had assigned the accused to take care of her daughters during her absence from the country and meet their requirements. There was no any reason for the visit of the accused to the house in a late evening.
Rakwil Grivita testified in the investigations of the public prosecution that as soon as she received a call from the school of the victim and asked her to call the father or mother of the victim and to inform the servant of the victim not to wash the bed sheet and the dresses of the victim, she called the mother of the victim and told her to call the school. Then the mother of the victim hold her that the victim was subject to rape by the accused. She töld her to pick her daughter from the school and take her to a doctor for inspection. The victim told her that she was lying on the bed in the room of her mother watching TV, then the accused came to her and closed the door. She told her (don’t rriäke me disappointed). Then he turned the TV off, slept above her, removed her pants and did something. She accompanied the victim to Hamad Hospital to conduct a test on her and to refer the victim to the forensic doctor. Then she accompanied one of the police officers along with her husband to the house of the victim’s mother to protect her belongings.
Philip Andrew testified that he knew from his wife Rakwil that the management Of the victim’s school called her and told her that the victim had subject to rape by the accused. He called the father of the victim in Canada and informed him that the school wants to speak to him due some problems related to his daughter. One of the parents of the victim called his wife to go to the school and pick his daughter to conduct a medical checkup for her. He accompanied his wife to the school and then to Qatar Medical Centre and then to the Emergency Division of Hamad Hospital.
Lt. Ahmed Al Hassan Saleh testified that once he received a call from the mother of
the victim, the latter was in Hamad Hospital When
she was discharged from the hospital he took her statement at Khalifa Town Police Station. Then he proceeded to her house along with another constable. They found the servant and two children. She showed them the room of the victim where no any useful traces were found. The dresses of the victim were confiscated and delivered to the concemed section to conduct the technical inspection. took the statement—of the accused who denied-the-contents of the-report-filed against him. After receiving the medical report which including the bleeding for the victim, his statement was again taken for clarification. He confessed before him that he had sex with the victim in her house with her consent. The accused is the colleague of the victim’s mother at her work. She had advised him to look after her daughters during her travel, including the victim and other two daughters
Dr. Nivine Abdul Majeed from the Medical Services Department at the Ministry of Interior confirmed before the first instance court that the rape has general marks in the body and local .marks at the vagina. The general marks in the body are those in the form of marks of violence and defence from the victim as if the intercourse is done with force. In case of mentäl force there won’t be marks of defence or violence in the body in general. As far as the local marks-are-considered it includes the traces of injuries at the vagina such as abrasions, bruises and breaking of the maidenhood. The samples are taken and if the sperm is found at the medical lab, it indicates to the occurrence of the rape. Sometimes there won’t be traced on the body Of the culprit in the case of small age of the victim or threat or difference in the body force between the culprit and victim. In all cases the culprit must be inspected to know any traces in his body indicating to the existence of force from the victim. She added that in the cases of rape, no local traces will be found on the penis of the culprit and if the penis as a whole is inserted there may be complete tearing of the maidenhood reaching to the walls of vagina. Whereas the partial tearing means that the tearing hadnt reached to the walls of the vagina. The partial tearing may occur if there is skin itching leading to the friction, scratcher and hand nails and the partial tearing may occur in case of any skin disease in this area, however it will not cause for bruising which requires a strong pressure.
Dr. Alaa Yousef Mahmoud from the Medical Services Department confirmed in her statement before the court of first grade and stated that that marks which may occur depend on the force of rape. She may have traces of bruises on the thigh, stomach or traces of defence. The maidenhood may be torn fully depending on the strength of the insertion of the penis. If it is fully inserted the maidenhood will be fully torn. Whereas if the insertion is not complete, the tearing will not reach to the wall of vagina. There may be traces of bleeding depending on the time in which the patient reaches to the clinic. The menstruation period of the woman will not affect the maidenhood with respect to the acceptability of laceration.
The criminal court concluded to convict the accused as per the article (280) of the penal code and ruled, having applied the provision of the article 92/1 of the same law, in presence in the hearing dated 28111/2012 and ruled to imprison him for five
years and deport him from the country once the punishment is executed or
invalidated. as to the validity of the admission of the accused at the investigations of the Public Prosecution about his sexual intercourse with the victim and the statements of the confirmation witnesses before the court and what and what is established under the reports of the forensic medicine and criminal lab.
The accused was not satisfied with this ruling and challenged the same with the appeal in question on 02/12/2012. He requested to accept the appeal formally and in the subject to rule newly with his acquittal. He has made his appeal on some reasons including the mistake of the award in applying the law and defect in evidencing and defect in reasoning and default to the right of defence.
When the appeal was considered the appellant attended himself accompanied_by his two attorneys. The advocate Sami Abu Sheikha expressed verbal pleading and submitted being complementary to that pleading a memo at the end of which he concluded with the following demands (I) to accept the appeal formally (2) to submit the appellant to the forensic medicine to explain the genital herpes disease he is suffering from. (2) to cancel the appealed award and rule newly with the acquittal of the appellant (4) reservedly to use the maximum grade of mercy and include the original and subsequent punishment with stoppage.
COURT RULING NO 3
The court heard the verbal pleading of the advocate Abdul Nasser Badwi from the office of advocate Mohsen Al Suwaidi and he submitted a memo at the end of which he requested originally: to accept the appeal formally and to invalidate the appealed award and to rule newly with the acquittal of the appellant from the accusation attributed to him. Reservedly: (I) to hear the statement of the Lt. Ahmed Ali Saad, Dr. Navine Abdul Majeed, Dr. Muna Mustafa, the victim, Philip Andew Griver and principal of Doha College School on the date of the incident (2) to add the file of the victim at the school (3) to present the accused to the forensic medicine to explain if there were any traces or injuries or marks or not, which have relation with the accusation and to describe his body in general.
The appeal has met all the terms and conditions required in the law.
Regarding the summoning of each of Lt. Ahemd Ai Saad, Dr. Navine Abdul Majeed,
Dr. Muna Mustafa and Philip Andew Griver, to hear their witnesses, it is established in the minutes of the hearing of the first grade court that the court has already heard their statements and some of them in more than one hearing and the hearing of some of them were adjourned based on the request of the defence. It means it has realized the defence of the appellant in this regard. The origin is of second grade shall rule as per the requirement Of the documents and shall not conduct any investigation I Inless-itzfinds necessary to conch Int euch investigation. ft is not obliged to hear the statement of the witnesses except those who were to be
heard by the first grade court, have been revealed before the court and there is no need to hear the witnesses again—Regarding the summoning of the victim, it is impossible to realize this request due to the departure of the victim to the country since years and her re-entry to the country has not been recorded so far.
Therefore there is no blame in taking a decision in the case without haring her tement and it will not prevent the dependence of the court in its award on her statements in the investigations as long as these statements were made during the investigation. Regarding the summoning of the principal of the school and adding the file of the victim of the school are not productive in the case and the court does not find that it has any visible relation with the subject or as necessary to take decision in the case.
So, the court is free from responding to such request considering that the demand to hear the witness is a substantial defence and it must be, like other substantial defences, having visible relation with the subject of the case means the decision therein be necessary to take a decision in the subject itself.
Whereas regarding the invalidity of the confession attributed to the appellant as issued in the investigations of the prosecution as it is incorrect, contrary to the fact and as it is not issued from him nor has he signed it or established the objection to sign, making the attribution of such confession to him impossible and the foul play in the reports of the police and investigations of the prosecution as the documents of the case do not include the original of those investigations. It is rejected because if the documents of the investigation fully or some Of them are lost it Will not prevent depending on its official copies considering it as stipulated under the article 401 of the law of criminal procedures- it stands for the official documents. Also the article 206 of the law of criminäl procedures has given the right to the accused in any stage of the case to challenge by forge
the hearing report. The plaintiff or his defenders hadn’t decided to challenge by
forgery against the reports of the rosecutio investi on befo nothing in this way can be raised if the appellant hasn’t taken th law to achieve, because what is demanded by the law to follow
was established from the official copies of the prosecution investigation-report-that the appellant had signed on some of its papers including the page in which he had admitted his crime and his regret for the same—Therefore, what is raised by the defenders of the appellant in this regard cannot stand.
Regarding the statement as to the trick and fabrication of the accusation is substantial defences which originally do not necessitate clear reply as long as the reply is understandable indirectly from the ruling of conviction based on the evidences of substantiation brought by the award. Regarding the statement of contradiction between the statements of the victim, if assumed as correct it will not blame the award as long as the court has concluded the reality from those statements as a justifiable conclusion in which there is no contradiction. It is established that the court hasnt depended in the conviction except on those statements. It is established that the award cannot be blamed for taking the statements of the victim as long as the court is convinced of the validity of the statements considering that she knows about she states as is fully aware of it.
The law has not prohibited hearing the witness which js taken as a mean of evidence without oath but the court whenever it is convinced of it can take and depend on it. The defence raised in this regard is not in its reality except a substantial dispute about the power of the court of subject in balancing the factorS of the case, the assessment of which is its exclusive power.
The consideration in
nalffials is the satisfaction&the-judge based onOhe_
evidences presented to him. It is not possible to demand him to take a particular evidence itself except in the cases prescribed under the law in this regard. The law has made in the judge’s power to balance the strength of substantiation and to take any evidence or proof on which he is satisfied-as-an-evidence-for—his-award. The evidences of the award each is considered as complementary to other and all of them help the judge to form his belief. No any particular evidence is taken to discuss separately without other evidences but the evidences as a whole are taken as one unit leading to the: ihtent of the award producing the full satisfaction and contentment
of court in its conclusion. that the evidence must be clear and indicating itself to the incident to be-substantiated-but—the substantiationA:an-be— concluded by evidencing as the court can explore_from-the-circumstancesrevidences— and the priorities of the incidentse The balancing of the statement of the witnesses and the assessment of the circumstances in which the statements are made are left to the determination of the court of subject without any observer against it when it takes the statement of any witness. It shows that it has assessed all the considerations brought by the defences. The court can also break down the evidence submitted to it and take what is satisfactory to it from the statements of the witnesses and disregard what are not satisfactory. It is not compelled to explain the statements of the witnesses if it is multiplied. It can depend on the statements of the witnesses at any stage of the case whenever it is satisfied to the same
There is nothing that prevents the court from taking the statement whenever its accuracy is established and confirmed that it is issued by the person to whom it is attributed. As such the court has taken the statement of the witness Rakwii Grivita that the victim had informed her that she was subject to the intercourse by the appellant. She had accompanied her to the hospital and the inspection has revealed the new tearing of the maidenhood.
COURT RULING NO 4
The statements of her mother Ann Marry Lois who told what is narrated by her daughter to her that the appellant had entered her room, closed the door and uttered “don’t disappoint me”. He had removed her underwear and inserted his penis in her vagina for a short period and then he went away.
The testimony of Lt. Ahmed Ali Saadis that the plaintiff has admitted before him of his intercourse with the victim. Dr. Nivine Abdul Majeed has confirmed that if the intercourse occurs with moral force, it will not leave traces of resistance or force in the general body and the partial tearing means that the penis is not inserted fully. Dr.
Alaa Yousef Mahmoud has stated that the full tearing of the maidenhood occurs as per the strength of the insertion of the penis. If the penis is fully inserted the
maidenhood will be torn. If the insertion is incomplete to the
wall of the vagina and also the menstrual period of the
maidenhood with respect to the acceptability of laceration. The forensic medicine report discloses that there is new and partial maidenhood tearing and the edges of vagina was redden, bleeding, swelling, paining and having bruising. It indicates that the insertion of thé penis was incomplete. The report of the forensic lab states that there are not traces of sperm on the samples taken from the victim nor at her dresses, which confirms that acknowledgement of the appellant that he hadn’t discharged the sperm inside or outside the victim.
The legislator means by the crime of sexual intercourse with the woman the natural full sexual contact between the man and woman inserting the culprit his penis in the place prepared for this purpose in the body Of the victim as long as the insertion
occurred even if partially. The crime occurs even if the operation is not completed by discharging the sperm. What is required by the law to meet the criminal intent in the crime of intercourse with woman without her consent is the committing of the culprit to this act from which the crime occurs when he knows that he is doing something prohibited by the law and there is no consideration what tempted him to do this act.
The act is considered as taken place even with the consent of the victim if she is a minor means the small age is an evidence for the lack of consent. It is the status of the case in question. The appellant had intercourse with the victim when he knows that she hasnt reached sixteen years old, has exploited his relationship with her family, The familiarity between them has made her not fear him nor to be precautious from him but he exploited such confidence, from him but she had confidence in him but he exploited such confidence, entered her room, closed the door, told her “don’t disappoint men being preparation to have sex with her. When she became under his disposal, he had intercourse with her, inserted his penis in her vagina intending to harass her sexually. Since the attack of the appellant against the victim was on the bed as stated in the investigations it is not clear his mark therein or her expression about her intent to reject the contact of the appellant with her sexually and her ability to objet and defend. This necessitates, as per the article 234/2 of the law of criminal procedures, to punish him as per the article 280 of the penal code.
This court has got confirmed of the substantiation evidences in the case and it objects the denial of the appellant and disregards what is raised by the defenders with regard to the defects of the defences as it meets no support of documents and it is based on making doubts with presumptive objectives which have no basis of the fact and the court has to do nothing excepf its invalidation and disregarding. Due to the above, the appeal has to be rejected substantially and the appealed award has to be confirmed due to these reasons and the valid grounds on which the verdict
Due to these reasons
The court ruled: To accept the appeal formally and in its subject to reject the appeal and confirm the award appealed against.
The judgement was issued accordingly and read publicly in the session held today (29/04/2013) in the name of H.H. Shk. Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, the
Emir of the State of Qatar.
Ibrahim Saleh Al Nasaf
Chief of the Bench
Signed by ahmoud Hamdi ring Clerk