Rapist has sentence reduced as judge says there is no indication that it was anything other than a 'single impusive act'

Surely someone who impulsively commits extreme acts of violence is extremely dangerous?

And does this describe the Applicant in this case, do you think ?

Surely someone who impulsively commits extreme acts of violence is extremely dangerous?

How can that be in any way a mitigating factor?

Pau Yes, I'm a Solicitor. I would have thought that its more of a balance of probability - but I'm not sure on that question and the only book which I have to hand, that might have assisted is way out of date and doesn't appear to deal with that question anyway - I don't practice in criminal law, but it is the most interesting.

What the Appeal Judges will have done in the first instance, is listen to advocates for the Appellant and the Crown as to reasons why the sentence should or shouldn't be changed.

They obviously can't look into the future as to what crimes he might go on to commit. All they are saying here was that there was no evidence that this was a planned attack and it appeared to have been impulsive (see paragraph 26) - so in this case, without any such evidence, there simply is no balancing exercise to carry out anyway. The factual background that led to the attack - and which seems to have been accepted by both sides - is also set out. They also note that he had no history of any violence or sexual offences.

Yes, their views seemed sharply at odds with those of the original (female) judge, whilst being at pains to say they were not criticising her original assessment. Although obviously they were criticising it. The defendant's lawyer appears to have referred to two appeals heard in England where "findings of dangerousness" were set aside. The judgement states they don't actually know if those cases were similar to this one but that they set a precedent for not regarding a single sexual offence as evidence of a risk of re-offending.

They note that his failure to recognise the seriousness of what he had done has to be set against a pre-existing background of a good work record, a previous stable relationship and an absence of any similar activity in a mature man. - I don't see what the first two have to do with whether he is likely to reoffend. Are all rapists unemployed and unable to maintain a relationship? The Yorkshire Ripper was married and had a job.

(For those who haven't read it, the appeal court judges agree with the original judge about what the tariffs are, and that certain factors trigger the higher tariffs. But they've argued that this case doesn't have those factors whereas the original judge's opinion was that it did.

So this isn't some impersonal, automated process of bureaucracy: it depends heavily on the individual opinions of the judges.

I'll try to write more, but can't do it right now.)

I'll need a second pass to pick it apart properly.

But nauseating in that, at first glance, they appeared to be working hard to choose interpretations most favourable to the attacker. I need to re-read it to see if that's accurate.

Can I check something, if you're someone with legal knowledge (are you)?

"Innocent until proven guilty" pertains until someone has been found guilty, yes? So a high standard of certainty is required to find someone guilty.

Once someone has been found guilty, what is the standard of certainty required for sentencing? Does a judge have to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that a convicted offender will re-offend, before they can decide that the offender is a danger to the public?

Or is it balance of probabilities, ie over 50%.

Or would say a 30% probability of the offender committing a further serious offence (not shoplifting) be enough to make them a danger?

Pau - nauseating in that they (the panel of Judges) were trying to abide by the sentencing guidelines that is imposed on the Criminal Courts ?

From what you've read of the judgement with its references to the guidelines, why do you think that the judges were wrong to order a lower sentence ?

And the truly nausea-inducing bit is the judges' behaviour, I should add. Not "merely" the details of the attack.

Well the woman wasn't being careful was she. She was out alone at night and forgot to leave her vagina at home

ffs only one person is ever guilty of rape. typical victim blaming and yet again making excuses for violence by men against females

So it's all part of a continuum? They're afraid their own behaviour will be challenged unless women are always in the wrong? That would add up.

cad, I've now read that judgement too. I'll have to go back and re-read because I found the first pass too nausea-inducing to fully concentrate.

First impression is that the judges would win limbo at the Olympics, they're bending over so far backwards.

Having read the judgement, I think you may be on your own in thinking him a nice guy.

Oh well I'm sure he's a nice guy really. We just need to no go near hI'm when he's drunk. Or grumpy. Or angry. Or anything other than mellow really. Still...not his fault, not his problem.

Sadly Pausing I take a more cynical view on this than you do.

I believe that the reason so many men argue against enthusiastic consent is because they KNOW that they've been guilty of sexual coercion but they like to pretend that they're nice guys.

So they maintain that they "didn't realise" that they'd got a woman blind drunk before sleeping with her (despite buying doubles and pretending they were singles) or they "can't read minds" when women don't actively fight back (despite the fact that the woman froze and clearly wasn't comfortable with what was happening and just stopped bothering to say no rather than saying yes)

So they pretend that women are stupid and change their minds, because the alternative is to admit that they're very bloody lucky that they haven't been charged with sexual assault and they have no intention of changing their behaviour.

Here is the judgment from BAILII - for an insight into the Courts thinking in this case. When Judges have to decide on a sentence, they need to refer to sentencing guidelines - with sets of possible aggravating (such as previous convictions of a similar nature) and mitigating circumstances , although the lists are not exhaustive. What the Judges are trying to do is to look at offences of similar gravity and hand down similar sentence.

So, applied to another serious crime, I assume this judge also believes that the sentencing for murder should be reduced providing it's an impulsive one-off?

Can atrocities like this be overturned?

Yes, is there anything we can do?

And the excuse that alcohol was involved
Wtf

Fuck sake.
1- it's highly unlikely the stranger rape was the first incident of sexual violence in this mans life. All the evidence we know about sexual violence indicates that it escalates, and raping a stranger in a car park is the definition of an end point, not a starting point
2- even if this was the first incident, again (see above) it's highly likely he would do it again and probably worse

Arararrarathfjgfhdhshhsshj

That judge should be struck off!

Is it that they think it's wrong, but it's actually kinda convenient that there are other people prepared to commit sexual violence?

Perhaps because it helps enforce some social end the Squeaky Cleans are quite happy with?

I'm still at the mulling stage with this.

Is there anything we can do?

I've read the link now.
What it appears to boil down to is "silly woman, going willingly with the man in question, probably knew what was likely to happen because didn't run away when left alone with him, or fight him off"

So, victim blaming at its finest then. Bloody bastard judge.

I suspect this because of the sheer number of people (men and women) who seem eager to support and assist rapists, and to attack the victim to assist in the process.

Yes, OneFlew, I've been wondering about about that.

My suspicion (tho NB I have no evidence for this), is that there are many people who themselves have not committed sexual violence, and possibly would never commit sexual violence. But are more than happy to enable other people to commit sexual violence.

How does that work? What's happening in the enablers?

If they believe sexual violence is hunky-dory, why are they not doing it themselves? If they believe it's wrong, why are they colluding with the abusers?