By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A MAN who restrained a 14-year-old girl in a wooded area for nearly a week—handcuffing her to a Dilly tree, tying a rope around her neck, sealing her mouth with duct tape and having unlawful sexual intercourse —has been unanimously denied permission by the Court of Appeal to challenge his 20-year prison sentences for unlawful sexual intercourse, forcible detention, and kidnapping.

The court ruled that his application had “no prospects of success” and that the original sentencing judge acted well within the proper range given the prolonged captivity, the child’s age, and the breach of trust involved.

The perpetrator, Lincoln Poitier, a family friend and distant cousin of the teenager, lured the girl under the guise of a normal outing.

On January 3 2004, he took her to the Town Centre Mall, where he bought her a Baby G watch. The court recounted that he then drove her to a secluded track road, forced her out of the vehicle, and handcuffed her to a Dilly tree. A rope was tied around her neck and duct tape sealed her mouth, leaving her restrained in the bushes. Over several days, Poitier returned intermittently, leaving the teenager alone in these conditions.

The girl remained tied to the tree for approximately six days, until she managed to escape on January 8, 2004. She ran to the main road, where a passer-by rescued her and took her to Princess Margaret Hospital.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the offences, noting the combination of unlawful sexual intercourse, forcible detention, and kidnapping.

“I acknowledge that the court has a wide and unfettered discretion to sentence an accused, who has been convicted, for any offence, at the end of his trial,” the judgement read.

“I have reviewed and considered the relevant statutory provisions and the case law. I have also had regard to aggravating and mitigating factors herein. I take judicial notice of the prevalence of sexual assaults. I have also taken particular notice of the circumstances surrounding the acts herein of forcible detention, kidnapping and the unlawful sexual intercourse of the complainant, who was aged 14 years, at the time, and was sexually abused and suffered alone in the wilderness, handcuffed and tied to a tree for six days, until she was able to escape and was eventually rescued.”

Poitier’s appeal, filed nearly three months late, challenged only the two 20-year sentences for unlawful sexual intercourse. His attorney, Marianne Cadet, argued that the punishment was excessive, claiming the sentencing judge improperly considered his alleged lack of remorse and treated the case as though it involved a different offence. The court rejected these arguments, highlighting that the judge had carefully considered both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court noted that the sentencing judge had cited several aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the disparity in age between the offender and the victim, and Poitier’s refusal to accept responsibility. The only mitigating factor identified was the absence of previous convictions. “After a review of the circumstances of the offence and of the offender which were before the judge at the sentencing hearing on December 17, 2014, we were unable to say that she erred,” the court ruled.

The court further said that the judge was correct in using rape cases as a benchmark, as Parliament intended strong protections for minors under the Sexual Offences Act. The law allows for life imprisonment for unlawful sexual intercourse with a child aged 14 to 16. The court compared Poitier’s case to previous rulings, where offenders received sentences ranging from 20 to 30 years, noting that this case ranked among the most serious due to the child’s young age, the isolation, the restraint, and the prolonged fear and suffering endured.

The judgment highlighted Poitier’s position of trust within the family. The girl had known him since she was six, and her mother regularly allowed him to supervise her children, trusting his guidance. The court also dismissed Poitier’s argument that trial delays justified a reduced sentence. It outlined an 18-year timeline showing his repeated failures to appear at case management hearings, multiple warrants for his arrest, revoked bail, and a separate five-year burglary sentence served during the same period. While minor delays by the justice system occurred, the court found no basis to lessen the sentence.

“The Intended Appellant never complained about any delay or his right to be tried in a reasonable time. While the delay may be present, and could warrant some consideration of the sentencing judge, the sentence not being at the high end of the sentence range, there is no real prospect of having the sentence reduced. Insofar as some delay existed, therefore, the same would not have had any real impact on the appropriateness of the sentence,” the judgement noted.

The court unanimously refused Poitier’s extension of time, confirming the appropriateness of the 20-year sentences and leaving the offender to serve his full terms.