A high court today punished a music teacher with jail time for reaching his hand into an 11-year-old boy’s pants and squeezing his testicles when the student did not get the answers to his question right.
“This case is particularly worrisome because it involves a teacher and his student. Teachers are considered to hold a unique position of trust, care and authority due to their influences on children and young people through education and learning. Parents put their trust in teachers and expect them to respect their children,” said Justice Pamela Beckles to Rico Renaldo Edwards, who was found guilty over a year ago.
“Your conduct is a complete departure from the standard expected of a teacher and his student and amounts to a serious breach of trust, in that you failed to protect the complainant who was in your charge.
“This court considers this a fundamental breach of trust, in that, you were obligated to protect this student and maintain public confidence in the reputation of the teaching profession and you failed,” Justice Beckles said before handing down the sentence.
Edwards, 21 at the time of the incident, had pleaded not guilty on July 1, 2019 to the charge of indecent assault but a jury found
him guilty after trial.
The convict, who is enrolled in a music programme specializing in key board, maintained his innocence in the incident stating that his actions were construed as sexual but they were not.
He expressed regret about the negative impact the incident had on his life especially his lost opportunity to join the Royal Barbados Police Force.
On January 7, 2016, the student attended music lessons taught by Edwards. The boy said, during the lessons, he kept getting the answer to Edwards’ question wrong and the teacher unbuckled his (boy’s) belt, stuck his hand in his pants and squeezed his testicles.
The student pulled away but Edward pulled him by his belt and continued with his hand in his underwear.
When the boy returned home his mother overheard him telling his brother what had happened. She told the boy’s father and the matter was later reported to police. Edwards was then identified by the boy in an identification parade.
The court heard that Edwards, who lives with his mother at Sargeant’s Park, Foul Bay, St Philip, has no previous convictions. His mother described him as being loving, gentle, non-violent and responsible. She said her son always wanted to pursue a career in law enforcement.
According to his pre-sentencing report, Edwards’ relationships with his brothers and father were favourable and his extended family said he spent his time in “positive pursuits” and did not associate with “undesirables” or idle away his time.
There was no indication of mental health or psychological issues before this incident but Edwards did have to seek intervention from a mental health professional since the incident.
Community members described Edwards was a respectful, law-abiding resident who did not associate with criminal influences and about whom they had never heard any unfavourable reports.
Edwards, through his church, started to attend sessions with a trained counsellor in 2019 “to empower him to work through the issues which led to [his] court appearance”.
The parents of the boy deemed the offence a violation of the trust they placed in an authority figure. They said at the time of the incident, their son was introverted and shy and was particularly vulnerable “given the power differential between him and [Edwards]”.
The boy said he has blocked out the memories of the incident over the years. He indicated that the school promised to provide counselling but this never happened.
However, he is said to be progressing well academically and hopes to enroll in the Barbados Community College
music programme.
He is described as a model student who is actively engaged in school life and performs leadership roles in school.
A psychological assessment described Edwards as likeable, soft-spoken and well mannered but the psychologist revealed that when seeking to discuss the charge, he appeared evasive and unwilling to go into much detail.
Edwards’ language comprehension and verbal abilities were said to be “somewhat weaker” than what would be expected of someone of his age and level of education.
The overall psychological and emotional report was said to be stable, and it noted that Edwards did not display any obsessive, suicidal or delusion verbalisations but demonstrated a lower than normal degree of personal insight than would be expected for an individual
his age.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the court looked at a section of the Sexual Offences Act which states that a person who indecently assaults another is liable on conviction, on indictment to a period of five years’ imprisonment.
“In deciding the appropriate sentence the court has noted that, generally speaking, the starting point is not the maximum but that in most cases the maximum penalty is reserved for particularly heinous cases or where the accused is a repeat offender; neither of which is applicable to your case,” Justice Beckles said.
The court took into account all the information regarding Edwards, the circumstances of the offence including the aggravating and mitigating factors, the pre-sentencing/psychological reports and the four testimonial witnesses.
The aggravating factors were considered to be the nature and seriousness of the offence, the quality and degree of trust and the breach of that trust, the disparity in ages between Edwards and his victim, the youth and vulnerability of the young boy and the effect of the offence on him.
It was decided that a custodial sentence was merited in order to send a strong message to society that this type of behaviour will not be encouraged or condoned.
A two-year sentence was considered an appropriate starting point with a reduction based on the mitigating factors. Those factors included his previously clean record, his active engagement in academic pursuits, youthfulness and favourable-sentencing report.
A six-month reduction was given.
“Sentencing is one of the hardest exercises for any judicial officer. It is not an exact science and each case is dependent on its own peculiar circumstances,” the judge explained.
Justice Beckles said a compensation order, suspended sentence, fine, bond and probation were looked at but she did not consider that any would do justice to this case.
Edwards was sentenced to 18 months in prison and given full credit for the 117 days spent on remand. He will have 431 days remaining to spend in jail. He was also ordered to enrol in counselling, psychological intervention and education programmes.
Principal Crown Counsel Krystal Delaney prosecuted the No. 5 Supreme Court matter.
