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

Agree.

Fair enough.

Next up, everyone gets the same sentence for speeding, whether they're 31 in a 30, or 120 in a 30.

Stealing a loaf of bread is now treated the same as stealing the crown jewels.

And the elderly guy married for 60 years, who gives his terminal ill wife a morphine overdose to end her suffering, gets treated the same as Fred West.

By the way, telling me to fuck off , could be considered a malicious communication. It's at the milder end, but you don't believe in that, so I guess you'd be getting the maximum of 2 years?

If you really can't see why there's a range of sentences available for the same offence, then my mind absolutely boggles.

For sure, but then why not do a quick google search and read a variety of articles to establish the facts. Rather than spending the time piously lecturing other posters about reading the daily mail?

@hydriotaphia

These articles are not “whipping up hatred” for the judiciary. You speak as though people don’t have their own independent thoughts and mind.

Have you considered that people are understandably outraged by the lenience of the sentence, while still understanding that the judge is working within the confines of the sentencing guidelines?

Yes. But you feel free to justify the raping.....

And here we have the perfect example of someone preferring the froth.

Do you think all three men should get the same sentence?

This thread separates out those that understand the sentencing procedure in a court, and those that don't.

Most people aren't going to understand sentencing procedure and law, it's reasonably niche, and if it's not something you've come across or work with, terms like is rapist's not being dangerous or there not being severe psychological trauma seem atrocious. But as people have pointed out they're legal terms, with legal definitions that the judge has to apply.

This headline could apply to cases up and down the country everyday. It's just one the daily mail chose to use to drive their agenda on immigration.

Take another area of life, that most of us are familiar with, for example, pregnancy. The term geriatric pregnancy sounds really offensive, especially to someone still in their thirties. But there's no point getting upset about, because it's a medical term with a specific definition. In the same way, dangerousness has a legal definition and it's quite a high bar. If it is considered that the sentence is too low that can be appealed.

I think people prefer to get caught up in the froth though.

As a lawyer I find these articles attempting to whip up hatred for the judiciary really dispicable. The judge has to follow the sentencing guidelines. He has to categorise the offence by harm done - ie he has to examine where there are any additional factors which make this offence harmful over and above the ingredients of the offence (which are already taken into account). He has categorised it as category 3 not category 2. He also has to assess whether the offender is dangerous in the sense of posing a significant risk to the public of committing further specified offences. On the facts he has found that the thresholds are not met.

A judge is, quite rightly, not allowed to throw away the guidelines and just apply the higher categories if there is no factual basis for them.

The fact that the judge did not categorise the offence into higher categories is NOT a way of saying that he does not consider the offence serious. See pp10 to 12 https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Aug-2015-Sexual-Offences-Definitive-Guideline-web.pdf

Some real ignorance of the law on this thread.

Some real ignorance in general. Lots of self-righteous comments about posters excusing rapists, when it’s perfectly clear that it’s the depiction of the judge that they’re questioning.

Do you really think they're treating all rapes alike in terms of sentencing will help women?

Or does it give a licence for rapist men to be as violent and barbarous and sadistic as they want, because the sentence is the same.

Being blunt here, because this isn't a topic where we can be coy, this would mean giving the same sentence to these guys:

1. a. 14-year-old from a troubled background, victim of child sexual abuse himself, someone who is grown up with very blurry lines when it comes to consent, in a consensual sexual relationship, doesn't take no for an answer, and rapes her once, hates himself for it.

2. A man repeatedly rapes his wife over a 20-year. She has children as a result of these rapes, and has tried to commit suicides several times. She stays with him for cultural reasons.

3. a man drags a child off the streets at gunpoint and subjects her to a sadistic sexual assault and rape lasting a prolonged period. Includes anal rape. Child needs intense psychological support for the rest of her life and never emotionally recovers.

All of these are rapes. All of them are wrong wrong. All of them deserve prison. But they are not the same, they don't show the same level of barbarity, and they shouldn't get the same sentence.

I think wanting to know the full information before forming an opinion rather than jumping to conclusion is not a problem.

Honestly give it ten years and they’ll be saying how they were always very vocal about this issue yada yada

I've just looked at the sentencing guidelines here:

Rape sentencing guidelines

and, on the basis of the news coverage, I can't see any factors that would elevate it beyond category 2B, which is the sentence he got.

I think people often don't realise that judges can only sentence within the parameters of the guidelines.

Oh god, fuck off with your pathetic purity performance. Another poster who cares more about showing they are superior for not reading the Daily Mail, than the rape of a child, it’s revolting.

I’d be happy to lock up child rapists forever.

@WorriedRelative

You’re correct, I’m using those words in their everyday context and not the strict legal definitions, not being a lawyer.

Thank you for your explanation, it’s helpful. However, I still don’t know why this rapist having potentially being discriminated against could be considered a factor in mitigation.

Why blame and tarnish the judge? It sounds like he was himself frustrated that he could give a longer sentence but he is not at liberty to bend the rules.

It's nasty to point the finger at him.

This

The sentencing guidelines are here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/

The judge’s remarks are him explaining his reasoning in line with the guidelines, using the terminology used in the guidelines. As none of us have access to the evidence that the judge saw, as presented by the prosecution and the defence, we have to accept his categorisation. The police seem happy with the sentence. The comments of the shadow justice secretary, as reported in the DM, smack of political point scoring.

It’s not like, that’s exactly what it is.

You are using those words in their normal everyday meaning not in the context of their strict legal terms.

A defence is a specific argument that can be raised to answer an allegation. So if you are accused of murder in would be a complete defence to plead self-defence and a partial defence to plead provocation or diminished responsibility, a partial defence leads to a lesser conviction of manslaughter.

A plea in mitigation doesn't arise until after a guilty verdict and is the defence raising factors they would like the judge to take into consideration when deciding the sentence. The judge is bound by sentencing guidelines so will have a range to work with and can give the maximum, the minimum or somewhere in between. Factors raised in mitigation are often nothing to do with the actual offence and more to do with the character and circumstances of the defendant and whether he is a risk to society.

A common mitigation would be asking a judge not to give a driving ban for a driving offence because the defendant would be unable to work or asking for a non-custodial sentence where the defendant is the sole carer for a disabled relative.

This isn’t court reporting. It’s reporting the reaction of a Tory MP to the outcome of a trial that took place in June.

Exactly. The establishment are still frantically trying to cover this stuff up because community cohesion or not wanting to appear racist/islamaphobic or plain old virtue signalling. An increased likelihood of young girls being raped is accepted as a reasonable price to pay.

Actually when it comes to court reporting, journalists, wherever they’re from, have to report fairly, accurately and contemporaneously, or they’re hauled up for contempt. Court reporting is taken very seriously. They have to report comments verbatim if given as a direct quote, they cannot take out of context. It’s actually part of the judicial process. Part of the criminal’s punishment is it being reported widely in the press.
While I rarely agree with the DM headlines, nor their entire editorial approach, and would never buy or read their site, you really are wasting your time trying to defend the judge here.