A man accused of having sex with an intellectually disabled woman has walked free from court after Justice Rajiv Persaud granted a no-case submission, determining that prosecutors had not adequately proven a central element of their case — that the complainant qualifies as “mentally subnormal” under the law.

Defense attorney Sherfield Bowen had argued at the close of the prosecution’s case that the evidence presented was insufficient to meet the legal threshold, and the judge agreed.

At the heart of the ruling was the legal definition of mental subnormality — described under the law as “a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind” — which encompasses people with considerable impairment of both intelligence and social functioning. While the prosecution maintained that a formal diagnosis was not required, Justice Persaud took a different view entirely.

The judge was firm on one point: this is not a question for a jury to decide on their own. Determining what constitutes significant mental impairment, and whether it rises to the legal definition of mental subnormality, demands qualified expert testimony. Without such guidance, he said, a jury simply cannot be expected to make that call. He noted that juries do not know “everything on everything.”

Justice Persaud also raised questions about whether the combined testimony of the three prosecution witnesses — the complainant’s mother, a teacher, and an educational assessment expert — was enough to satisfy the legal standard. He pointed out that none of them had provided “overt” evidence directly establishing that the complainant suffers from mental subnormality as legally defined. He also questioned whether every instance of impaired social functioning automatically meets the definition, and how severe the impairment must be to qualify.

The jury was directed to return a not guilty verdict. However, the prosecution has signaled it intends to challenge the ruling on appeal.

The trial, which commenced before Justice Persaud earlier last week, centered on an alleged incident from 2022. Testimony during the proceedings revealed that the accused had become a frequent visitor to the complainant’s home from late 2021, regularly preparing meals for the family. The alleged offense reportedly occurred after the mother of the complainant fell asleep following a meal the accused had cooked, while her daughter and the accused watched television nearby.

The mother also gave evidence describing her daughter’s developmental history — that she requires constant supervision, did not begin walking until ages seven or eight, was not toilet-trained until around age six, has difficulty with verbal communication, and interacts largely through gestures. She further stated that she had no knowledge of any relationship between her daughter and the accused.

An “educational testing” expert also testified that the complainant has the cognitive abilities of a 4 or 5 year old. She had performed cognitive tests on the complainant in 2022.

However, the judge believed that her evidence was not enough to deduce that the complainant was mentally subnormal as the witness is not a psychologist and was therefore not able to diagnose.