AIBU to think the judge’s comments in this case are completely inappropriate?

In the UK sentencing guidelines. It’s appalling, but it’s there. Along with being under 25 and therefore being immature.

I’m not, and this is a perfect example of why.

He’s an Iranian national, neither the police or the Home Office will state his immigration status. Regardless, I think he should be sent back to Iran once he’s served his pitiful sentence.

‘Discriminated against’ - in what world would that possibly be considered as a defence or excuse for such abhorrent behaviour?

Poor child. I am very pro-immigration.

Sentencing guidelines give examples like negative experiences with authority, being in care, facing discrimination (probably racial in nature) etc as mitigation.

I suppose the feeling is that if you hate the police, are angry at the world and/or yourself, you’re more likely to offend.

Check that judge’s hard drive.

Immediately.

Nobody wants to hear this, but he may have had some mitigation because of his age (21).

Any previous history of his own such as being discriminated against is also considered.

There is a certain threshold above which the victim is considered to have suffered "significant psychological harm". I presume that legal threshold wasn't met in this case. This wasn't a throwaway comment from the judge, but an explanation of why he cannot consider this a reason to change the offence from a Category 3 to a Category 2, which carries a (slightly) longer prison term.

Dangerous offender also has a legal definition, which again I presume wasn't met - maybe the judge was wrong, maybe he wasn't, I don't know.

Yes, we all want child rapists to rot in jail, but the sentencing guidelines are what they are. In fact, I think the judge has given the maximum penalty for an offence in that category, but I'm no expert.

Absolutely this. Inflammatory reporting by the DM to provoke exactly the response you had OP with no explanation of the actual legal definitions.

In any serious case like this a judge must assess ‘dangerousness’ based on a very strict set of criteria. They include past offending, behaviour since the incident, remorse, and likelihood of reoffending (which itself is judged by probation officers using a matrix, as well as their own subjective opinion on top of that). He may not be at risk of reoffending because he will be deported at the end of his sentence.

It’s basically a legal term that the DM have used to provoke an emotional reaction. I was in a case last week where a rapist had offended against 3 people in the most horrific ways, but because his offences were a decade ago and he had not (on the face of it) reoffended, he was not deemed to be dangeorus. It happens literally every day in crown courts up and down the country. I’ve never framed a headline on it, because it would be disingenuous of me to do so.

ETA the ‘psychological harm’ to the victim also has to fall within strict parameters. If the victim doesn’t describe ongoing mental health issues or trauma in her interviews or victim personal statements then the court cannot assume she has it. They are asked lots of questions about trauma and can hand over medical records if necessary. The court will have considered all of this.

I read the Mail article and the corresponding versions on the BBC and Guardian sites. The judge followed sentencing guidance and does not appear to have done anything wrong. That does not stop this rapist being a scumbag who should be deported immediately on release.

I wonder what his criteria for a "dangerous person" is? The bar seems like it might be a bit too high.

It’s difficult to say what the minimum and maximum sentence would have been when we have such little detail about the case. We don’t know what category of the rape offence it fell into. If it was Cat 3B, he was given the maximum. If it was Cat 2B, he got the minimum.

Not sure if the judge’s comments would be available somewhere.

Dangerous is a legal term. It is a finding usually reserved for those with serious prior convictions as this is a good way of judging whether they will ck time to be a significant risk to the public on release. It does not impact the sentencing, just the licencing period after prison release.

And the severe psychological harm? Again, this will be based on evidence provided by the victim. A child is unlikely to be able to provide this as it’s usually proven by years of trauma.

No idea what the full summing up is, but these two comments in no way diminish the victim.

The devil is in the detail - “sentencing guidelines”. The judge chose to go soft on this guy - which is what the OP’s post was about. You’re so hung up on the nasty DM that you’re throwing girls who’ve been raped under the bus. Shame on you.

Are we not allowed to hate rapists? That’s news to me.

God forbid there might be tension or unrest as a result of accurate reporting of a judge’s comments on this man’s heinous crime…

What’s wrong with you?

Absolutely untrue.

The judge followed the sentencing guidelines as he is bound to do. If you are disappointed by that, perhaps there should be campaigns for meaningful reform, as opposed to the hatred the daily mail spreads? It’s such a shame you fall for it.

7 years? Absolutely pathetic. That poor girl. Let me guess, no deportation on account of his human rights or some such nonsense?

Well maybe you should.

Oh they understand, they just care more about showing how superior they are in their reading material than they do about rape victims.