Court requests DNA sample from businessman facing incest charges
Published:Saturday | April 27, 2019 | 12:00 AM
A non-intimate DNA sample has been requested from prominent Montego Bay businessman Patrick Chung as he awaits his September 23 trial for six counts of incest and five counts of indecent touching in relation to his daughter.
The DNA sample will be used to prove a relationship between him and his accuser.
The application for collection of the DNA sample was made by the prosecution at a case management proceeding on Thursday in the St James Circuit Court, where the trial date was also set. It follows a recent ruling by the Constitutional Court that Chung must stand trial by the end of the year or the charges dropped.
Chung is accused of having sex with his daughter over a nine-year period, starting in 1976 when she was 13 years old. He was charged in April 2012, six months after his then 49-year-old daughter made a formal report to the police.
The daughter alleges that between January 1, 1976, and December 31, 1985, her father had sex with her at the family home in Montego Bay, St James, in a room located above the supermarket he operated in the resort town and in Canada while she was away studying.
Chung was attempting to have the charges stayed on the basis that the 34-year wait to have his day in court would prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under the Jamaican Constitution.
He also cited his inability to call potential witnesses and his failing health.
Justices Vivienne Harris and Glen Brown, two of three judges who presided over the constitutional proceedings, found that Chung must stand trial; however, Justice David Batts disagreed.
Chung is expected to update the court on May 1 as to whether his passport has been turned over to the relevant authorities.
The businessman is also expected to tell the court on May 7 whether he has agreed to giving the DNA sample.
The prosecution was not previously able to request a DNA sample as Chung had brought the matter to the Constitutional Court in February 2016, the same month the DNA Evidence Act received the governor general’s assent.