2 The case of the prosecution is that on the 24th of May 2010, at night whilst PW1 (Naba Fatty) was waiting to board a vehicle for Essau, the accused invited her to join him in a vehicle, saying he too was going to Essau. When they arrived at Essau, the accused refused to let her step down and threatened to beat her up if she forcefully tried to get out of the vehicle. The accused took her to his house at Sanchu Muntel where she remained with the accused for eight days with the accused having sexual intercourse with her every night. She was only released when the police raided the residence of the accused in search of her. The accused was later arrested and taken to the police station whereat he volunteered a cautionary statement which is in evidence as exhibit “A”. The accused person’s defense was a complete denial of these allegations insisting that exhibit “A” was obtained by duress. These are the brief facts upon which I must now proceed to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused person. However, suffice to state that at the close of the hearing both sides were given the opportunity to file written addresses. While the prosecution filed a five page address on the 14 of July the Defense did not respond to same within the 14 days time frame as ordered by the Court. When this matter came up for adoption of addresses on Monday the 10th of October, 2011, neither the State Counsel nor the Defense Counsel were in Court. The Court was constrained in the circumstance to proceed to judgment without any further reference to both Counsels.