The report, we suspect, was missed by many, since so much happens in this country daily. But, as publishers, we were left in shock.

Lawyers representing a man convicted in 2019 of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl on several occasions, in presenting an appeal on his behalf, argued that there was “no trauma and/or injuries sustained by the complainant when the appellant committed the act of grievous sexual assault”.

Additionally, they said, his action “was not, based on decided cases within our jurisprudence, the worst case of grievous sexual assault”.

We accept that attorneys should provide their clients with the best defence, but to descend to this level of insensitive balderdash is astounding.

The case, as outlined in the summation of the trial judge, was that the child, who lived with her parents, habitually visited her friend, an older girl whose family lived across the road. They would play in the other girl’s room. The convicted man lived in a separate house on the same premises.

According to the evidence, during her visits to that house on several days in July 2016 the man called the 11-year-old from her friend’s room, took her to his room, and assaulted her.

At the end of each encounter the child would return to her friend’s room and resume play. She made no complaints about the incidents until her mother, on one occasion, saw her leaving the man’s room and questioned her.

It was then that the child explained that she told no one of the incidents because the man told her not to and “threatened” her.

A subsequent medical examination revealed evidence of bruises in the region of her anus consistent with infliction by a blunt object.

The accused man denied the allegations but was convicted by a jury in the Home Circuit Court for grievous sexual assault, buggery, and sexual touching. He was slapped with the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for grievous sexual assault and sentenced to four years in respect of each of the other two offences.

In his appeal, the man’s attorneys also argued that the sentence of 15 years was manifestly excessive and unjust as there were no acts of violence committed by him during the act of grievous sexual assault.

This convict and his attorneys seemed unaware that children are scarred by sexual abuse – sometimes for life.

This convict and his attorneys should read the None in Three Research Centre’s qualitative study on child sexual abuse in Jamaica.

The study, published in 2021, contained data collected in 2019 which found that survivors of child sexual abuse reported lifelong maladaptive and destructive behaviours.

“Female survivors reported challenges with psychological functioning, interpersonal relationships, academic and occupational functioning, and inappropriate behaviours. They experienced significant emotional distress resulting in a range of emotions, as well as suicidal thoughts, self-harm behaviours, and poor self-esteem,” the researchers said.

The study reminds us that many victims do not come forward “because of an inadequate justice system that often shames the victim, scars familial relationships, and damages social positioning”.

There’s a lot more in this research, as in many others on sexual abuse. What the various studies all agree on is that much more needs to be done to address this issue.

The defence presented in this appeal surely confirms that conclusion.