Bush found not guilty in historic rape case

(CNS): It took the jury of four women and three men little more than one hour on Monday afternoon to find McKeeva Bush (MP) not guilty of rape and sexual assault. As the foreman delivered the verdict at around 3:20pm, he said that it was unanimous. Bush then told the court he intended to call for a commission of inquiry into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police commissioner.

Outside the courthouse, Bush said he was bringing a motion to parliament, which was supported by Chris Saunders MP, to look into the ODPP because of the persecution against him and other cases that the office had brought that had raised concerns.

Earlier in court today, lead defence counsel Jerome Lynch KC told the jury that his client had a right to be angry about the false allegations of historic rape. Bush, a former premier and speaker and a current West Bay MP, had emphatically denied the accusation made by a local George Town woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons. She claims he sexually assaulted her in a mangrove clearing off the West Bay Road more than 20 years ago.

As he summed up Bush’s response to the charges, Lynch said that among the many issues the jury should consider as they deliberated was how, in the same way that a man cannot know what it is like for a woman to be raped, a woman cannot know what it is like for a man to be falsely accused of rape.

He said it was the most serious of offences, and Bush was not capable of it. But he said the jury should not be surprised that Bush had been angry when he took the stand in his own defence, given the accusation.

Lynch also talked about the crown’s failure to offer a date for when the alleged rape and sexual assault took place. When he was arrested, Bush was told the potential date of the alleged crimes spanned a period of some six years between 1999 and 2005, while on the indictment, the crown said the rape occurred sometime between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2001.

However, throughout the case, prosecutor Eloise Marshall KC had focused on the year 2000, though no date has ever been identified, making it impossible for Bush to refute the allegations with an alibi.

“You have to give him a chance to be able to defend himself,” Lynch told the jury, saying that this put Bush in an impossible position when it came to demonstrating his innocence.

He said the police had tried to identify a possible date by confirming the political event at the Sea Inn bar in George Town where the woman claims she had gone to before agreeing to drive Bush home. But none of the people Bush’s accuser has said were there that night were called by the crown to give evidence.

During the course of the trial, Lynch said the police officer who led the investigation had spoken to Sir Alden McLaughlin because the woman said the political gathering was connected to his early political career, either when he was first running for office or just after he was elected for the first time. But McLaughlin, the current speaker of the House and Bush’s long-time political rival, had said he was unable to assist the police as he had no recollection of such an event.

Lynch pointed out that this lack of a specific date, the failure of the investigators to be able to confirm such a related political event and the lack of any witnesses, who could have been subpoenaed regardless of whether or not they wanted to testify, was fundamental to the crown’s case. But it also undermined Bush’s ability to defend himself against what he has consistently, from the moment of his arrest until he took the stand, said was a “pack of lies”.

Lynch also pointed out that Bush has never owned a Ford Expedition, the SUV that the woman says she had driven Bush home in and which the crown had presented as Bush’s own vehicle. Bush has said that at the time he owned a Lincoln Town Car, and Lynch asked why the crown had not presented the records and checked which vehicles he owned over the period they suggest the rape occurred.

As he wrapped up Bush’s defence, Lynch said that the vagueness of and the subtle changes in the woman’s account were not just because she could not remember what had happened so many years ago but because she was lying, as he urged the jury to acquit his client.