Deaf Rapist Goes Free
Deaf defendant walks free in rape case confusion
Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 08:01am on 7th December 2006
A deaf man accused of repeatedly raping a disabled woman has been allowed to go free because he is unable to understand the court case against him.
Emmanuel Etoundi, 41, went on trial accused of a string of sex attacks on the woman, who has learning difficulties.
Snaresbrook Crown Court in East London heard that the Ethiopian, who is also mute, was accused of committing five rapes and one attempted rape, and causing actual bodily harm.
Numerous sign language interpreters and a jury had already been sworn in at taxpayers’ expense when the prosecution took the decision to stop the case.
In a situation which the judge described as ‘quite extraordinary’, prosecutors announced they would be offering no evidence against the defendant.
Etoundi, of Camden, North London, has never learned sign language and understands very little English.
The prosecution was forced to reassess its position when it became apparent he was unable to comprehend the court proceedings.
Sandy Canavan, prosecuting, told the court: ‘It is not possible for this defendant to have a fair trial.
‘There is an overriding burden placed on the shoulders of the Crown to ensure that a defendant has a fair trial.
‘The Crown is not here to obtain a conviction at all costs. The Crown take the view there can’t be a fair trial in this case. In these circumstances we see no choice but to offer no evidence on the indictment.’
Judge William Kennedy said he had been determined the case should start after a series of earlier procedural problems. But he said he was satisfied the trial could not now take place.
The judge then called the jury back in to the courtroom to tell them what had happened. He told them: ‘This defendant is an Ethiopian. He has never learned sign language of any sort to any level.
‘He does not speak English. His competency to understand words of any length is truly flawed.’
He added: ‘His incapacity properly to fully and fairly deal with an allegation of this sort with all its complexities puts him at a fundamental disadvantage.’
Judge Kennedy said the alleged victim has learning difficulties and would also find it very difficult to give evidence.
He described the situation as the result of ‘a number of competing and conflicting pressures’.
The judge added: ‘There is no prospect of a fair trial of this defendant bearing in mind his fundamental difficulties.’
Etoundi had denied five counts of rape between August 1, 2004, and May 31 last year.
He also denied one charge of attempted rape and one charge of causing actual bodily harm between September 1 and 26 last year.
Judge Kennedy told Etoundi: ‘No evidence is to be offered against you on any of the allegations that you face here. You are free to go.’
He added: ‘It’s an odd outcome to a very odd case.’
Add your comment | View all Reader comments (6)
6 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below.
Here’s a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in.
The man is deaf, not daft. He will have known what he had done was ‘wrong’. How did he manage to deny the allegations if he cannot communicate? Anyway, what is he doing in this country? Is he seeking asylum because he is not allowed to rape and hurt vulnerable women in his own country?
- Anne, Middlesbrough, UK
Deport him then at least. Letting him go free is like saying go do as you please.
No common sense left in this country just Human Rights and PC nonsense.
- Mark, Leeds, UK
He understood enough to deny the charges so the trial should have gone ahead.
- Phil, London
Commentary: I know this is old news, but when I read this, I had to publish it. IÂ completely understand commenters’ concerns.
Where do we draw the line between the rights of the deaf defendant and the rights of the women to be safe in society? I am all for the rights of the disabled people, but not if it hasn’t been proven that one is innocent and if releasing the person, allegedly a serial rapist, puts the community into severe danger.
What about habilitating the person in a safe surrounding, i.e., in a supervised hospital setting? That’s what they did with a deaf immigrant with no functional language who killed a bar patron in VA not too long ago. That seems to be the best approach.
Also, how on earth could the defendant plead not guilty if he lacks a language?
Deaf defendant walks free in rape case confusion
Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 08:01am on 7th December 2006
A deaf man accused of repeatedly raping a disabled woman has been allowed to go free because he is unable to understand the court case against him.
Emmanuel Etoundi, 41, went on trial accused of a string of sex attacks on the woman, who has learning difficulties.
Snaresbrook Crown Court in East London heard that the Ethiopian, who is also mute, was accused of committing five rapes and one attempted rape, and causing actual bodily harm.
Numerous sign language interpreters and a jury had already been sworn in at taxpayers’ expense when the prosecution took the decision to stop the case.
In a situation which the judge described as ‘quite extraordinary’, prosecutors announced they would be offering no evidence against the defendant.
Etoundi, of Camden, North London, has never learned sign language and understands very little English.
The prosecution was forced to reassess its position when it became apparent he was unable to comprehend the court proceedings.
Sandy Canavan, prosecuting, told the court: ‘It is not possible for this defendant to have a fair trial.
‘There is an overriding burden placed on the shoulders of the Crown to ensure that a defendant has a fair trial.
‘The Crown is not here to obtain a conviction at all costs. The Crown take the view there can’t be a fair trial in this case. In these circumstances we see no choice but to offer no evidence on the indictment.’
Judge William Kennedy said he had been determined the case should start after a series of earlier procedural problems. But he said he was satisfied the trial could not now take place.
The judge then called the jury back in to the courtroom to tell them what had happened. He told them: ‘This defendant is an Ethiopian. He has never learned sign language of any sort to any level.
‘He does not speak English. His competency to understand words of any length is truly flawed.’
He added: ‘His incapacity properly to fully and fairly deal with an allegation of this sort with all its complexities puts him at a fundamental disadvantage.’
Judge Kennedy said the alleged victim has learning difficulties and would also find it very difficult to give evidence.
He described the situation as the result of ‘a number of competing and conflicting pressures’.
The judge added: ‘There is no prospect of a fair trial of this defendant bearing in mind his fundamental difficulties.’
Etoundi had denied five counts of rape between August 1, 2004, and May 31 last year.
He also denied one charge of attempted rape and one charge of causing actual bodily harm between September 1 and 26 last year.
Judge Kennedy told Etoundi: ‘No evidence is to be offered against you on any of the allegations that you face here. You are free to go.’
He added: ‘It’s an odd outcome to a very odd case.’
Add your comment | View all Reader comments (6)
6 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below.
Here’s a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in.
The man is deaf, not daft. He will have known what he had done was ‘wrong’. How did he manage to deny the allegations if he cannot communicate? Anyway, what is he doing in this country? Is he seeking asylum because he is not allowed to rape and hurt vulnerable women in his own country?
- Anne, Middlesbrough, UK
Deport him then at least. Letting him go free is like saying go do as you please.
No common sense left in this country just Human Rights and PC nonsense.
- Mark, Leeds, UK
He understood enough to deny the charges so the trial should have gone ahead.
- Phil, London
Commentary: I know this is old news, but when I read this, I had to publish it. IÂ completely understand commenters’ concerns.
Where do we draw the line between the rights of the deaf defendant and the rights of the women to be safe in society? I am all for the rights of the disabled people, but not if it hasn’t been proven that one is innocent and if releasing the person, allegedly a serial rapist, puts the community into severe danger.
What about habilitating the person in a safe surrounding, i.e., in a supervised hospital setting? That’s what they did with a deaf immigrant with no functional language who killed a bar patron in VA not too long ago. That seems to be the best approach.
Also, how on earth could the defendant plead not guilty if he lacks a language?
December 15th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
you know, that’s remarkably similiar to Donald Lang’s case back in late 60’s here in the United States. He never had learned sign language, and was charged with two homicides of women. Due to him unable to understand or communicate, the court dropped his case in the first case. But in the second case, there was a lot of evidence connecting him to the killing of the woman. In all, they paid for him to go to an insitutition to learn sign langauge but at his age (20’s), it was too late for him to even understand language itself. From what I understand, he’s still in an institution. Does it mean he was dumb? No, I think it is because he had NO access to communication at all as a child.
However, I feel that does not excuse him or the Etophitan(sp) from crimes they had done.
December 16th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Wolfer, you are absolutely right. However, the court system is set up that the defendant must participate in his defense. It happened to that deaf immigrant who raped and killed his fellow bar patron in VA, too.
I personally feel this Ethiopian should be institutionalized rather than let loose in a society where he remains a menace to women. I am surprised British Court made this decision.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I agree with the 3 British commentors. They are absolutely right. Why did not the Court put him up for observation in a supervised setting? Or deport him. That could create unholy precedent in not understanding a thing, to get off the hook in trials. Jeez!