PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Monday denied an application by a man seeking special leave to appeal his conviction of raping a child in Belize for which he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

The CCJ upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Belize that affirmed the conviction by the High Court.

The victim, who was 11 years old at the time of the offence, gave uncorroborated evidence that on August 21, 2016 she went to the Julio Recino’s corn mill to purchase corn tortillas for her mother when the incident took place.

The child returned home without reporting the incident to anyone, but five days later the police received an anonymous report that a minor had been abused. The child was examined by a doctor who confirmed that she had been “carnally known”.

Recino’s appeal was previously dismissed at the Court of Appeal. He subsequently applied to the CCJ on the same two grounds that he did at the lower court. The first is that the trial judge omitted a crucial discrepancy between the evidence of the victim and the doctor who examined her and secondly, that the weaknesses of the Crown’s case were not sufficiently analysed and put to the jury.

In its ruling, the CCJ said that it examined the sufficiency of the judge’s directions and found that there was no discrepancy between the medical expert’s testimony and the judge’s directions.

As it pertained to the second ground, the CCJ also found that the trial judge’s summation was fair and balanced to both the prosecution and the accused, given that the jury was made aware of the inconsistencies and weaknesses presented by both sides. There was no basis for considering that the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing this ground.

The CCJ said that for an application for special leave to succeed, the applicant must show that there is a realistic possibility that a potentially serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and or a point of law of general public importance is raised and that is genuinely disputable.

The CCJ said that it was persuaded that neither of these two possibilities was present in this case.