Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
A 48-year-old man from Valencia has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for repeatedly raping a 15-year-old boy, whom he took in after the boy ran away from home over a decade ago.
Nigel Gordon Phillip was convicted of two buggery charges 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 the evidence presented by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Dylan Martin, the teen from Laventille left home after having an argument with his grandmother, who he lived with, 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 teen reportedly had a conversation with then 38-year-old Phillip, who was a customer in the restaurant and the victim believed was someone in authority, as he was wearing clothing bearing military markings.
Phillip allegedly invited the teen to his home after hearing that he ran 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 teen at his house 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 a job for him at a nearby supermarket and would wait for him after he finished his shift.
He claimed he was required to hand over his salary when he was paid.
The teenager, who celebrated his sixteenth birthday while at Phillip's house, eventually escaped and made a report to the police, which led to Phillip being charged.
Phillip was charged for three specific incidents in which he buggered the teen during the period, excluding the first occasion when the teen came home with him.
The jury acquitted him of one count and convicted him on the other two.
In deciding the appropriate sentence for Phillip, 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 relative to Phillip.
She said that Phillip, who worked as a security officer, Spanish tutor, and football coach, had not been charged or convicted of a criminal offence before being accused by the teen.
She also noted that Phillip, who has a long-standing partner and a 16-year-old child, both of whom he is 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 and not concurrently, meaning that Phillip would serve 18 years instead of nine.
Her decision was based on her finding that nine years in prison would not be sufficient to reflect the repetition of the offending and 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.
