Somerset Police prosecuted 16-year-old girl for racially abusing her rapist,(14 Posts)
Serious Case Review:
"The offences against the children occurred between 2010 and 2014 in Somerset. They were subject to police investigations, in 2011, 2012 and August 2014. This investigation resulted in the prosecution and conviction (in 2016) of the 2 men for sexual offences against 6 victims aged between 14 and 15 (when the crimes were committed) and a 7th victim aged 18. At the time of conviction Perpetrator A was aged 34 years old and was convicted on 2 counts of rape and 7 of sexual assault, and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment"
"There was evidence in the records from 2010 for Child Q and 2011 for Child C: both were aged 15 when agencies learnt that they had an older 'boyfriend', albeit the actual age and identity of any boyfriend was not known initially. The parents of Child Q however recalled raising such concerns earlier when Child Q was aged 13 years old."
"Both C and Q believed they were 'in love' and that perpetrator A was their boyfriend, who gave them presents and intended to have a permanent relationship with them. He was significantly older than them and subjected them to physical, sexual and emotional abuse as part of a controlling relationship. "
"There were three professional referrals about 15 year old Q to children’s social care services in September, October and November 2010, from the school, the targeted youth service , the adolescent support worker from the local service team and three referrals
from Q’s own father. These included concerns that:
In September Child Q disclosed at school that she had woken up that morning in a flat with two unknown males and another female. She thought her drink had been spiked the previous evening and had no idea who the people in the flat were
Relationship problems at home between Q and her parents, that the father had hit Q and that Q’s father was concerned that Child Q was sexually active.
That Q was in a sexual relationship with an older (26 or 28 year old) married man with children, named as perpetrator A
Q's behaviour had deteriorated, with her truanting from more and more lessons at school, being rude and aggressive at times and going missing from home"
"It is not known why there was no investigation into the boyfriend or
the allegations Q made with regard to waking up in a flat without knowing how she got there, or who the other people were (but see finding 2 in section 4). This was the 1st missed opportunity to find out about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q. "
"In October, the father referred his concerns again, mentioning that he thought his daughter had a miscarriage 7 weeks earlier. This
was the 2nd missed opportunity to find out about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q."
"The referral in November 2010 by the father was even more worrying, with CSC records mentioning his concerns that Child Q was continuing to have a sexual relationship with perpetrator A, who also has sexual relationships with other girls, carries a knife with him in his car, physically assaults Q, humiliates her and forces her to beg. Child Q had spoken of loving perpetrator A and that he planned to leave his wife for her when she was 16. Her father spoke of Q receiving gifts. The initial assessment concluded that family support to be provided under s.17 (Child in Need) and, because Child Q denied there was a sexual relationship, the investigative approach ended. This was the 3rd missed opportunity to find out about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q."
"Shortly after this Child Q had a miscarriage and received medical attention following the event, supported by her mother. 15 year old Q denied that Perpetrator A was responsible for her pregnancy, maintaining the relationship was not sexual. The school and the adolescent support worker made a referral to CSC and a social worker visited when Child Q said the male responsible for her pregnancy was 17 years old, but did not disclose his identity. This was the 4th missed opportunity to find out more about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q e.g. by investigating further the identity of the 17 year old."
"A police report from this period (August - December 2010) shows knowledge that Child Q stayed at the perpetrators place of work (a barber’s shop) overnight sometimes, when reported as missing. Reference is made to this being a 'controlling' relationship as well as
citing an example of the humiliation the girl experienced. There is also a note in CSC records to a police officer establishing that the girl stayed overnight at the flat of perpetrator B, a friend of perpetrator A. The reasons for the lack of follow up is not known, but probably relates to policing and social care practice at the time, as described in the Brooke SCR, of waiting for disclosure of sexual abuse by children. This was the 5th missed opportunity to find out about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q."
"In January 2011 CSC closed the case following Child Q stating her relationship with Perpetrator A was over and that he was with someone else. "
"By January 2011, some agencies knew about both perpetrator A and B. The latter only in relation to police information on domestic abuse and being a friend of perpetrator A.
Perpetrator A was though the subject of repeated allegations in terms of physically, sexually and emotionally abusing one 15 year old girl as well as it being also alleged he was having sex with other girls. "
"Child Q was 16 years old. Her emotional and mental health deteriorated, with concerns at school that she was self harming and an admission to hospital following an overdose in January 2011, being seen at CAMHS [via a GP referral] in March and April and being prescribed anti-depressants. At CAMHS she spoke of the end of a relationship with a 29 year old married man. She named perpetrator A and told her mother (whilst at CAMHS) that the relationship had been sexual, involving physical abuse and that he had got her pregnant, leading to her miscarriage. No referral was made to police or CSC by CAMHS and the reasons for this are not known. This is discussed further in finding 5, section 4.
This was the 6th missed opportunity to find out about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q and particularly critical as Q herself spoke of the abuse and confirmed that the relationship had been sexual.
"In early May, Child Q was admitted to the local hospital again following an overdose after an 'altercation' (hospital records) with her boyfriend, which CAMHS describe as her being 'physically assaulted' after an argument where perpetrator A admitted to seeing someone else. CAMHS advised Q's father to self refer to CSC and made no referral to police or CSC. It is not clear what injuries Child Q suffered as a result of the assault, but a few days later she was back at the hospital Emergency Department following another overdose. She continued to attend CAMHS, receiving treatment for depression, speaking of still seeing perpetrator A as well as being considered to be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his previous assaults on her. However, still no referral was made to police or CSC (reasons are not known for this). This was the 7th missed opportunity to find out about perpetrator A's abuse of Child Q and particularly critical again as Q continued to speak of the abuse. "
"Child C (aged 15) was missing from home in February 2011, self harming and known to be sexually active: the school appropriately shared concerns with CSC who advised a referral to CAMHS. There is no information of any referral. Given the known vulnerability of Child C, known to CSC, and the information relating to her being sexually active, an assessment needed to be undertaken.
2.4.5 In June 2011 the school appropriately informed police that Child C was pregnant, reportedly by her boyfriend believed to be aged 19-21 years old. The police incorrectly recorded this as intelligence, instead of a crime. Police noted that CSC had no concerns and were leaving the school to deal with the matter. The school welfare officer confirmed that Child C did not want to 'engage with other agencies'. The police have advised as part of this review process, that the information was not categorised as a crime and hence not communicated by the intelligence officers to those police officers dealing with child protection. This was the 1st opportunity to discover about perpetrator A’s abuse of C and eighth opportunity to investigate perpetrator A."
"In mid-July 2011 police intelligence indicated that perpetrator A had sex with children as young as 14 years old and also mentioned the relationship with 16 year old Child Q. The intelligence was disseminated to CSC and police departments.
The next month, perpetrator A reported being verbally and racially abused by Q and she was prosecuted, although found not guilty at a subsequent trial."
"A further intelligence report in early September named 15 year old Child C as perpetrator A's new girlfriend. Subsequently Child Q's father called the police following a fight between children Q and C over perpetrator A. Child Q then disclosed in a video interview
that the sexual relationship between her and perpetrator A commenced when she was 14/15 and he was 28.
2.5.4 A police investigation was commenced. CSC records note that the school advised that perpetrator A had been Child C's boyfriend for some time and had got her pregnant. The police also found, in a search of perpetrator A's home, paperwork relating to Child C's termination of pregnancy. He was arrested for sexual activity with C, but no charges came about as C refused to co-operate.
2.5.5 Also, in the search of perpetrator A's property, indecent images of Q were found on A’s telephone. However in October 2011, Q told police she had lied in the interview, so the investigation was filed as no further action, on evidential grounds. Moreover, the crime record noted this as 'consensual sex,' whereas in law a rape had been disclosed, because of Q's age when the abuse first occurred (and the 13/14 year age difference between her and perpetrator A)."
"In November 2011, perpetrator A complained to the police that 16 year old Q was verbally racially abusing him. She was charged and at a later trial found not guilty. By this stage Q had disclosed to police her sexual relationship with perpetrator A, and a police investigation had been initiated, but following her retraction the investigation was filed as no further action. Moreover, at the time of the incident perpetrator A was in the street with 6 teenage girls, which should have been viewed as a cause for concern, given the history of allegations known to police. A victim support letter was sent to Perpetrator A, although it noted the history of 'domestic issues' between him and Q. The officer in charge noted that A had been in an underage relationship with Q. However, there was no senior officer involvement and these factors were not shared with the CPS who made the decision to charge Q.
The police report for this serious case review suggests that on occasion police officers were confused over what was the most important issue to deal with, with the alleged 'hate' crime overshadowing the real offending taking place around CSE. Hate crime is seen as a high priority offence that requires robust action, and the response in isolation would be correct, but not when placed in the context of the wider picture already known to the police.
The prosecution of victims of CSE for alleged 'hate' crimes against the very people already known to have abused them is a further abuse of the victims, and will undermine any trust they might have in authorities.
It is important for the SSCB to check how police and CPS systems have now changed so that all contextual information known to the police is taken into account when decisions are made about charging children with 'hate' crimes. "
"During 2012 both Q and C were pregnant and gave birth to Perpetrator A's children.
2.6.2 In December 2011 Q booked into the hospital for her pregnancy on her own, providing no details of the prospective father. In February 2012, there was police intelligence disseminated to other agencies that perpetrator A was the prospective father and he had threatened Q with a knife wanting to terminate the pregnancy."
and it continues on and on with the rapist continuing to groom, rape and exploit girls until perpetrators finally arrested in November 2014.
"What is surprising though is that even when the age difference of the sexual partner was known by police and social care to be 10+ years, no action was taken purely on this basis. Moreover, when the girls lied and gave ages variously 3 - 7 years older, this was accepted without reporting concern"
That's terrible. These girls are being completely failed.
One day men will have to own up and face how much they loathe women.
Well, that was a difficult read. Thanks for posting OP. Even an old cynic like me finds it hard to believe that she was prosecuted for a hate crime - I hope those in Somerset who missed the opportunities to intervene are hanging their heads in shame.
It seems to me that the police are constantly on about hate crime - they Tweet about it several times a week - which is fine and good and obviously some things have progressed from 50 years ago.
So if you can go in and say 'I'm a victim of a hate crime because I'm Turkish/a Muslim', as the rapist did here, then the police take that seriously, but they refuse to recognise as a hate crime of a man controlling, abusing, impregnating and forcing girls to have abortions.
A hate incident is one "which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."
So raping and abusing numerous girls is NOT perceived by the groomed victims, nor by the police, as "motivated by hostility or prejudice" based on biological sex. Yet the girl (maybe) saying something rude to her rapist, she gets her taken to court, even though the motivation for any offence would have been the fact he is a rapist.
Perhaps the police need to do some research into the motivations of these men so they can 'perceive' things more accurately.
Bumping so hopefully more people see this. A difficult read and the police response is incomprehensible.
I read this earlier today and felt so utterly depressed I had to go and distract myself from my thoughts.
I know that serious case reviews portray the worst, both of humanity and often the sheer incompetence of those services designed to protect the vulnerable but this one had the added insult of those services actively persecuting and prosecuting the most vulnerable. And nobody stood back and thought and said STOP? One of these girls had to go through a court case and be found not guilty!!
Have the police taken any action in response to this? Was anyone disciplined, including whoever from the CPS authorised the prosecution??
Could we pick apart why misogynistic abuse isn’t a hate crime and crimes against people with disabilities, trans people, gay people, PoC are?
I veer between it being because the establishment simply doesn’t care, or it’s because it’s so widespread and common that they realized they would’ve have to prosecute so many men as to make it unworkable. A tacit acknowledgement of widespread pernicious abuse of women, if you will.
I think it's because misogynistic abuse is so widespread it's seen as normal. That is the way women have always been treated and a lot of people don't understand why it needs to change. Just look at some of the reactions to abuse and harassment by politicians - lots of people coming out saying that women are overreacting, it's just banter, and how can any of these silly women expect to find husbands if men can't act like sex pests.
I think it's interesting. There was a man found guilty today of murdering a transgender prostitute in the US.
There were apparently 100 transwomen in the court to watch the verdict.
If he had hired, had sex with, and murdered a female prostitute, there would not be anything like the same level of coverage. Killing female sex workers isn't seen as a hate crime.
I actually think "hate crime" as a category, should be completely abolished.
I agree that the reason that hate crime on the basis of sex doesn't exist, because the courts would simply not be able to cope with it. It's too widespread, too pernicious and too entrenched for society to deal with.
And if the oldest hatred cannot be recognised or prosecuted, then hate crime is a bit of a joke IMO. I also don't really agree with the principle of prosecuting people because of what they think rather than what they do. Who cares why you beat someone up, you did the crime, do the time for the action, not the thought.
Such an upsetting read. I just found myself shaking my head again and again, and yet couldn't even say I was surprised.
Man feels he's been wronged, and seemingly the police and the CPS are all over it supporting him (despite his actions towards the victim), taking it all the way to court.
Girl is wronged over and over and over again in the most serious of ways, and everyone just shrugs. And then prosecutes her for being the victim.
I hate this country sometimes.
Basically, child rapist man's hurt feelings are more important to the police and the CPS then the sexual and physical assault of a female child.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.