Ensuring that complainants in sexual crime cases remain anonymous

Breaking down the Sexual Offenses Act

Sections 62 and 63 of the Sexual Offenses Act, Chapter 8:03, Laws of Guyana (“SOA”) authorize the courts of Guyana to ensure that complainants in sexual offenses cases remain anonymous both in the courtroom and in any media reports of those cases.

In a previous article, I discussed Section 45 of the SOA, which authorizes Guyana’s courts to exclude the public and the media from hearings of all sexual offenses cases. In this article I mentioned that one of the goals of this law is to protect the identity of these people.

I also mentioned that Section 10 of the Childcare and Protection Agency Act, Cap 46:07, Laws of Guyana (“the CPAA”) contains similar legislation designed to exclude and prevent the public from hearings on sexual offenses involving minors Media reports this does all information that can enable the identification of minors.

There is therefore some synergy between Sections 45, 62 and 63 of the SOA and Section 10 of the CPAA.

Section 62

Section 62 of the SOA is entitled in the marginal note “Anonymity for complainants in press reporting”.

Section 62(1) states that publishing, broadcasting or transmitting any kind of information that could identify a complainant in a sexual offenses case is prohibited. This is an incredibly powerful law. It is very likely that because of this law, news reports of sexual crimes such as this one will only report the age or gender of the complainant. However, there were cases where this law was not complied with.

Although the law mentions “press reporting,” it only applies to media activities. it applies to anyone who unlawfully publishes the complainant’s data. What happens if the complainant’s data is not published by a news agency? What happens if a person familiar with the case posts details about the complainant on Facebook or another social media platform through a typed post, recorded video, or live video?

What happens if a police officer shares the details or documents with someone unrelated to the investigation or prosecution? What if a nurse at the hospital where the complainant was treated after the assault posted documents on social media or discussed details of the treatment? All of the above conduct may, in my view, be considered publications, broadcasts and/or transmissions within the meaning of this Act and the person responsible for the publication, publication or transmission may be charged and tried for the offense.

Importantly, the examples above are not the only cases in which non-media individuals or news outlets may violate Section 62. These are just a few of them.

Under Section 62(3), a person who contravenes Section 62(1) commits a criminal offense and, if convicted, is liable to a fine of $2 million. If the news report is distributed by a media outlet, it is likely that that media outlet, rather than each individual reporter or editor, will be charged with the crime.

In one of these cases, if the complainant has given written consent to the publication of his information, no crime has been committed. However, if the complainant gave consent out of fear, violence or fraud, the consent is invalid and charges may still be filed.

In certain circumstances, the inclusion of this information in a document and the distribution of that document may not constitute a criminal offense. These circumstances include the transmission of this information for investigative or law enforcement purposes or to provide medical or psychological services.

Section 63

Section 63 of the SOA is entitled in the marginal note “Anonymity for the complainant in court”.

This law requires the court to inform a plaintiff who is called to testify in a sex crime case that he is not allowed to give his name or address.

This law is simple but significant because it simultaneously protects the identity of the complainant and makes it easier for him to recount the details of the alleged sexual offense committed against him.

Taken together, these provisions ensure that complainants in sexual offenses cases can provide evidence of the alleged offense against them without fear of their identities and stories being spread to all corners of Guyana. Such a reality is bad enough, but it is made worse by the fact that Guyana is incredibly small.