What is the Justice rationale behind this court's decision? Teenager avoids jail after raping a 5 ye

Last edited:
Caged said:
That's actually an interesting point. What provision is there in law for ensuring judges are reliable and maintain some sort of consistency in sentencing?
Click to expand...

I presume that is what appeals are for. Can't they go both ways? I presume the CPS would appeal if they thought the sentence was too lenient?
 
This verdict must have been because of his age at the time. The jury did their job and found him guilty. The failure is the protection to the underaged no matter how heinous the crime. And honestly, he was 16 ffs, barring mental disabilities he should know it's wrong.

I really do think the older generation forget how capable teenagers are and think of them as still being 6.
 
esoteric said:
And honestly, he was 16 ffs, barring mental disabilities he should know it's wrong.

I really do think the older generation forget how capable teenagers are and think of them as still being 6.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. At 16, barring mental health issues you're practically an adult. At 16 I had a job (part time) was having a pint (when I could find a barman who believed I was 18). Stayed home alone when my parents and younger brother went off on holiday and looked after the house. True I was still prone to somewhat childish behaviour but for the most 16 year olds can quite easily be classed as young adults.
 
I find it amusing that everyone here is up in arms based purely on a metro article, criticising a judge who actually has all the facts. - because clearly everyone here knows better than the professionals.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I find it amusing that everyone here is up in arms based purely on a metro article, criticising a judge who actually has all the facts. - because clearly everyone here knows better than the professionals.
Click to expand...

Yet how many times have we seen sentences get changed on appeal?
Judges do get it wrong and sometimes quite spectacularly!
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I find it amusing that everyone here is up in arms based purely on a metro article, criticising a judge who actually has all the facts. - because clearly everyone here knows better than the professionals.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts, too. GD members must have unusually free access to all sorts of restricted information, going by half the threads in here. The offender might be worthy of the huge amount of stars people in here are throwing about but we don't actually know.
 
Caged said:
That's actually an interesting point. What provision is there in law for ensuring judges are reliable and maintain some sort of consistency in sentencing?
Click to expand...

The fact that they have to give a full written set of reasons (including every factor considered) for any decision, and the fact that if they make a decision that is overturned (IIRC anyone can ask for a sentence to be looked at again if they feel it's too lenient) they have to justify the reasoning and if it happens too often or the people checking the judge deem it necessary they get retrained or asked to retire.

It's one of the reasons you often don't get the sentence announced for a while after the result of the case, as the Judges sentencing report/remarks can run to many pages (citing all the things that push towards a longer sentence, all the things that push towards a shorter one, the sentencing guidelines, precedents etc).

The sentence in this case seems very very off, but I suspect the Judge has probably tried to follow all the legal requirements as best as they can, sentencing even for relatively straightforward cases can apparently be a minefield and very complicated, so I can imagine what it might be like for a complicated case involving a teenage defendant who will be considered a minor in law.

But yes, I'm amazed it's not a reasonably lengthy jail term for the teen, so suspect there must be a lot that isn't being reported.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I find it amusing that everyone here is up in arms based purely on a metro article, criticising a judge who actually has all the facts. - because clearly everyone here knows better than the professionals.
Click to expand...

My OP was a reuest to paint me a picture, of a situation where you think it is appropriate to not securely contain a 17 year old, after he has raped a 5 year old.
Since the 'professionals' clearly have the evidence, what possible situation could exist that public safety doesn't dictate that he should be either in prison, or contained in a mental health secure unit for rape?

Please give me a conceptual idea of how the judge came to this decision.
Then you can find it as amusing as you like.
As a father, this does outrage me, so go ahead and paint the picture of how secure containment isn't the best for society in this case.
 
Aren't most abusers abused themselves? For all we know he might have been abused from the moment he was born, and therefore be very 'damaged'
It's an inexplicable sentence, but only the people involved know all the facts.
Then again, he could just be a ****.
 
The case is now aparently with the atourney generals office who will decide at some point in December if it should be referred to the court of appeal in the grounds leinency.

I understand that he may be damaged, may be a halfwit, may have been abused, but within criminal justice there is a need to protect the public. If he has raped one five year old, no matter how damaged he should be receiving treatment securely. I do hope someone is able to find the judgement and the ruling, as I would like to read it in detail.
The judgement was at Leicester Crown Court on the 6th November 2015 if anyone knows where a court publishes its ruling.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
The case is now aparently with the atourney generals office who will decide at some point in December if it should be referred to the court of appeal in the grounds leinency.

I understand that he may be damaged, may be a halfwit, may have been abused, but within criminal justice there is a need to protect the public. If he has raped one five year old, no matter how damaged he should be receiving treatment securely. I do hope someone is able to find the judgement and the ruling, as I would like to read it in detail.
The judgement was at Leicester Crown Court on the 6th November 2015 if anyone knows where a court publishes its ruling.
Click to expand...

Firstly, despite the press reports, I don't think he was convicted of rape. At most it must have been a sexual assault or something like sexual activity with a child (s9 SOA 2003) for the judge to be able to start at such a sentence. It's likely that there wasn't event genital contact.

Other mitigating factors that the judge may have taken into consideration is that the defendant didn't know what he was doing or the implications of his actions.

You jump on the bandwagon that this "rapist" is a danger to the public and other children, but the fact that he hasn't got a custodial sentence usually means there's a lot more to the actual circumstances.

Shock and horror that the parents want blood and the press misrepresent the facts.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I find it amusing that everyone here is up in arms based purely on a metro article, criticising a judge who actually has all the facts. - because clearly everyone here knows better than the professionals.
Click to expand...

'Professionals' get it wrong, do you never question their decisions?
 
Cosimo said:
'Professionals' get it wrong, do you never question their decisions?
Click to expand...

I do when I have all the facts.

Judges don't give out sentences they don't think will stand up - they know just as much as anyone else the appeals are costly to the system and that's why sentencing guidelines exist.
 
Uncle Petey said:
That's quite a misrepresentation if what you say is correct, Burnsy.
Click to expand...

If it were rape, the mitigation would have to be exceptional.

The appropriate sentence is likely to lie within a very wide bracket, depending on all the circumstances of the particular offence. There will be very few cases in which immediate custody is not called for, even in relation to a young offender because the purpose of the legislation is to protect children under 13 from themselves, as well as from others minded to prey upon them.

A very short period of custody is likely to suffice for a teenager where the other party consents. In exceptional cases, a non-custodial sentence may be appropriate for a young defendant. If the offender is much older than the victim a substantial term of imprisonment will usually be called for.Other factors include the nature of the relationship between the two and their respective characters and maturity, the number of occasions when penetration occurred, the circumstances of the penetration, including whether contraception was used, the consequences for the victim, emotionally and physically, the degree of remorse shown by the defendant and the likelihood of repetition.
Click to expand...

R v Corran and others [2005] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 73
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom