*TW* Pedophile found guilty of raping 5 year old given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE

Thank you wellbehavedwomen, I've used your template as the basis for my email to the attorney general, and I've set up a monthly direct debit to the Centre for Women's Justice.

I don’t get it, even if he doesn’t have full mental capacity, what’s the justification for removing him for the SOR after 5 years? Do they think he will magically not be a threat in 5 years, and not want to rape little girls?

Someone upthtead mentioned the possibility of chemical castration as a possible reason for such a pathetic sentence.

I mean, I’m all for it for all rapists, but we all know that a mans desire to stick it into any and everything he feels like is more important than protecting women and little girls, so I highly doubt that’s true

The general rule is that reporting restrictions expire when the young person attains the age of 18 as he/she is no longer a child in the proceedings and does not come within the child protection remit of the CYPA 1933 whether under section 39:R v CCC ex p W, B and C [2001] 1 Cr. App R (2)or section 49:T v DPP and North East Press 2003 EWHC 2408 Admin. The purpose underlying these sections is not to protect the interest of young people who have become adults. The Section 45 reporting restriction ceases to apply when the young person reaches the age of 18. In these circumstances, the court now has the power to impose life-long anonymity under Section 45A YJCEA if the relevant conditions are met. See section on lifelong immunity below.
I really don't understand this at all. It would make more sense if his name was withheld. As it stands it's the judge and his ruling that seem to be under restriction.

As it stands the sentence can only be challenged on partial knowledge. For me a suspended prison sentence would have made more sense if prison would have been inhumane, that way he could be immediately recalled. As it stands if he repeats the offence it years going to court again.

I haven't seen his address published in any of the reports (I'm not counting social media posts here, where it has been)

It’s in one of the online newspaper Reports. (don’t do Twitter / whatever sO don’t know about what social media is saying). Not mentioning name of paper as don’t want to incite an unnecessary Direct interventions

Where can I find the social media post? I've searched Facebook and Insta, nothing.

The Secret Barrister often does a great job of breaking down why the sentences passed are as they are in these stories (which are almost always sensationalist and from tabloids), although I guess this case is probably something they can't cover at the moment.

I would be interested to know the reasoning behind it as I agree the sentence is baffling.

It was the SM post I was thinking of, Lockhart, but I do take your point about the address not being in mainstream reports

I also agree there's a lot we can't know, but still don't understand why he's not at least in a secure unit

we don't know the specific details of this case, so it's very hard to comment

If only …

Given the lack of information being published and the sentence passed I would bet a good amount of money that there is a lot more going on which we don't know about.

If reporting restrictions were so stringent I wouldn't expect his photo and address to have been published

And yet they apparently have

He may have diminished capacity but shoddy journalism means we dont know

more likely reporting Restrictions

Rape is permitted now, here, isn’t it. Even of small girls. The justice system doesn't think it's as big a deal as women stealing food or not paying their council tax.

What is the justification for him walking free?? This absolutely abhorrent.. There's no words.

There's nothing there about him being underage when he committed the crime. He was charged and convicted as an adult and his picture is in the paper. He would be anonymous had he been underage at the time.

This sentence needs to be investigated.

Unless there's extenuating circumstances not detailed in the article - such as learning difficulties or a brain tumour - the judge needs to be struck off. People go to prison for minor crimes, raping a five year old is very serious.

If he was lacking capacity surely he wouldn't have stood trial. As it is he didn't plead guilty meaning he did not accept responsibility for what he's done. This alone would indicate a more severe sentence. The fact that given he hasn't accepted guilt how can 5 years on sex offenders register be appropriate, what will change in that time if he has learning difficulties and incapable of understanding the seriousness of what he's done.

Will certainly write a letter with all the relevant details

Incredible

If his learning abilities are such a mitigating factor, then he shouldn’t be walking the streets. He needs to be under lock and key, 24 7 , as he can’t be trusted around children.

A PP on a previous page said they know of this person and he lacks capacity, he talks to himself and takes children's toys on public transport.

How does a 'rehabilitation requirement" work in the case of someone with SENs? Is it tailored to their ability?

A PP on a previous page said they know of this person and he lacks capacity, he talks to himself and takes children's toys on public transport.

I may be judged for this but personally I couldn't give a toss whether he has learning difficulties, he needs to be locked away even if that means a secure hospital.

I have a child with a disability and I would expect nothing less than incarceration if he ever (god forbid) did something like this when he grows up.

If he knows about sex and how to do it then he's not completely docile is he.

Outrageous.

I've written to request an appeal.

This is absolutely horrific.

He has basically paid her £2.5k and then walked free.

It's legalised child prostitution.

It's disgusting.

I've sent an email saying I dont have all the facts but that seems out of line with sentencing guidelines and asking for it to be referred. Even if he was in the 14-18 age bracket this is not a sentence that protects the public.