A 48-year-old Valencia man has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for repeatedly buggering a 15-year-old boy whom he took in after the teenager ran away from home more than a decade ago.
Nigel Gordon Phillip was convicted of two counts of buggery by a nine-member jury before Justice Nalini Singh in late June and was sentenced this morning.
Phillip was accused of abusing the teenager between April and May 2015.
According to evidence presented by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Dylan Martin, the teenager from Laventille left home after an argument with his grandmother, with whom he lived, over his reluctance to join the Military-Led Academic Training (MiLAT) programme.
He went to a fast-food restaurant in downtown Port-of-Spain, where he met several friends.
After his friends left, the teenager reportedly spoke with then 38-year-old Phillip, who was a customer at the restaurant. The victim believed Phillip was someone in authority because he was wearing clothing bearing military markings.
Phillip allegedly invited the teenager to his home after learning that he had run away and had nowhere to go. His grandmother reported him missing later that evening.
The victim claimed that Phillip overpowered and buggered him shortly after they arrived at his house.
Phillip kept the teenager at his home for almost two months and buggered him several times. The victim claimed Phillip ordered him to clean the house and wash his clothes.
He also alleged that Phillip got him a job at a nearby supermarket and would wait for him after his shift. He claimed he was required to hand over his salary whenever he was paid.
The teenager, who celebrated his 16th birthday while staying at Phillip’s house, eventually escaped and reported the matter to police, leading to Phillip being charged.
Phillip was charged in relation to three specific incidents in which he allegedly buggered the teenager during the period, excluding the first occasion when the teenager went home with him.
The jury acquitted Phillip of one count and convicted him on the other two.
In determining the appropriate sentence, Justice Singh began with a starting point of 11 years.
Justice Singh considered the victim’s age, his vulnerability and the circumstances in which Phillip came to exercise influence and control over him.
“That created a considerable imbalance in age, maturity, resources, and control. The prisoner’s exploitation of the position which he had assumed materially increases the seriousness of each offence,” she said.
Justice Singh then reduced the starting point by two years based on mitigating factors relating to Phillip.
She said Phillip, who worked as a security officer, Spanish tutor and football coach, had not been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence before being accused by the teenager.
She also noted that Phillip had a long-standing partner and a 16-year-old child, both of whom he was financially responsible for.
“His previous good character, employment history, and family support justify a meaningful but measured reduction,” she said.
Justice Singh ruled that the sentences should run consecutively rather than concurrently, meaning Phillip would serve 18 years instead of nine.
Her decision was based on her finding that a nine-year sentence would not be sufficient to reflect the repetition of the offending and the trauma suffered by the victim.
“Having considered both the individuality of the offences and their factual connection, I am satisfied that an aggregate sentence of 18 years properly reflects the prisoner’s overall criminality and is not disproportionate or excessive,” she said.
The DPP’s Office was also represented by Josiah Soo Hon and Khi Cambridge.
