No relief for serial rapist

The convict in his appeal had argued that “the trial judge did not temper justice with mercy” or consider his guilty plea. Alicia Dunkley-Willis | Senior Reporter March 31, 2026 No relief for serial rapist But Appeal Court fixes parole oversight The Court of Appeal last Friday upheld the 40-year aggregate of sentences imposed on Patrick Green for what it described as the “horrific” rape of seven females — including an eight-year-old — across three St James communities, declaring that he “can safely be described as a serial rapist”. However, the appellate court also ruled that it was legally required to set parole eligibility terms after finding that the original sentencing judge had failed to do so.

In 2015 Green pleaded guilty before Justice Martin Gayle in the Western Regional Gun Court to 23 counts of various offences contained in three indictments charging multiple counts of rape, forcible abduction, grievous sexual assault, illegal possession of firearm, and buggery committed between 2012 and 2014. Justice Gayle, at the time, dispensed sentences of between five and 35 years on each of the 23 counts (which cumulatively amounted to 375 years), but ordered that the sentences on the first and second indictments run concurrently, while the sentences on the third indictment were to run consecutively to those imposed on the first and second indictments.

As a result, the imprisonment imposed by the judge was 40 years.

However, Green appealed the prison term, claiming that “the trial judge did not temper justice with mercy” or consider his guilty plea. Green, infamously known for what was labelled “The Irwin Point rapes”, also argued, through his attorney George Clue, that his trial was “unfair” and that the “sentences are harsh and manifestly excessive and cannot be justified by this court”. The tribunal, comprising Appeal Court President Marva McDonald-Bishop, Justice Nicole Simmons, and Justice Vivene Harris, who heard the matter on three dates this month, handed down their orders on March 13.

Last Friday the court, in providing its reasons for making those orders, said even while allowing the appeal in part, it had “determined that there was no justifiable basis to interfere with the sentences imposed by the learned judge, except to specify on the first and second indictments the minimum terms the appellant must serve before becoming eligible for parole for all counts of rape and grievous sexual assault, and to reduce the sentence for the offence of buggery charged on count four of the first indictment on the grounds that the sentence imposed was in excess of the statutory maximum and, therefore, manifestly excessive”. The Appeal Court noted that “the offences committed were horrific and undeniably egregious, having been perpetrated against five women and girls, one of tender years, and involving the use of a firearm and a knife”. It said, “Although there is no direct medical evidence regarding the effects of the offences on the complainants, the physical and psychological effects on them can justifiably be presumed, given the manner of the commission of the offences and the special vulnerability of at least three of the victims, who were children.”

Furthermore, the panel said it was of the view that “the fact that the learned judge could have justifiably imposed life sentences on at least three counts of rape on the first indictment, fundamentally undermines and, indeed, defeats the appellant’s position that the determinate sentences of 35 years’ imprisonment were manifestly excessive”. As far as Green’s arguments concerning the discount for his guilty plea went, the panel, citing the findings of a Barbadian court in a similar case, said… “considering the exceptional circumstances of the present case, it appears reasonable to conclude that the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty does not outweigh the gravity of the offences, his criminal antecedents, and mental instability, which together necessitate protecting the public from the serious risks he poses for a long time”. In fact, it said: “When the preceding reasons are considered cumulatively, it is clear that it would also have been justifiable to withhold a discount for the guilty pleas if the learned judge had deemed it necessary to do so.”

“However, there is evidence that he considered the guilty pleas and imposed a sentence that was less than what the appellant truly deserved. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appellant’s argument that his sentences for rape on the first indictment were manifestly excessive, for failure to give a discount for the guilty pleas,” the panel stated.

“Applying the relevant standard of review that we were obliged to deploy, we concluded that the appellant’s arguments did not provide any proper basis in law to interfere with the determinate sentences of 35 years imposed for rape.

However, having arrived at that conclusion, based on the appellant’s arguments, we observed that in imposing the sentences for rape, the learned judge failed to stipulate a period which the appellant was to serve before becoming eligible for parole, as he was required to do by section 6(2) of the Sexual Offences Act,” the panel said.

“Accordingly, the learned judge would have erred in law when he imposed the sentences for rape without making any stipulation as to the minimum term to be served before eligibility for parole. This error of law must be corrected to align the sentences with the mandatory statutory prescriptions,” the Appeal Court panel added.

“Regrettably, the learned judge’s error was repeated in relation to the sentences for grievous sexual assault. Although no arguments were advanced in relation to the sentences for grievous sexual assault, it is also necessary for the proper administration of justice to make the relevant stipulation in accordance with the law,” the court said further. As such, the Appeal Court ordered that in relation to the 35 years imposed on Green on counts 3, 7, and 8, he should serve 30 years before being eligible for parole; on counts 5 & 6, for which he was also slapped with 35 years, he can apply for parole after 30 years; on counts 9 & 10, for which he was sentenced to 15 years, he shall serve 11 years before eligibility for parole; while on counts 11 & 12, for which Green was sentenced to 15 years, he shall serve 13 years before being eligible for parole.

The panel affirmed all the other sentences which it made no adjustments to, including those on the third indictment, which the court said it would not disturb. The offences charged in the first indictment arose out of an incident that took place on September 24, 2012, involving five complainants — two women (aged 23 and

28. 2
29. and three girls (aged 8, 14 and
30. 1
31. The Crown’s case was that these complainants were at home in Irwin, St James, about 10:00 pm when they heard a man’s voice outside the window of a bedroom in which the 16- and 23-year-olds were.

The voice said, “The whole a unnu give me unnu phone.” The 16-year-old looked outside the window and noticed that there were two men with masks on their faces, and one was armed with a gun. One of the men (“the first gunman”) demanded their cellphones, and they complied.