Stuart Kerner sounds like a manipulative liar but should he really get the same length sentence as a teacher who pursues a pupil who isn't interested in them? I think most people would say no and I'm sure the legal guidelines say that as well. So if a teacher who goes after a reluctant pupil would rightly get a longer sentence then it's up to the judge in each case to explain why each one has got whatever sentence they have got. That's all the judge did here.
The whole point of this type of crime is that some people who groom much younger children or adults in whom they are in a position of trust over is that they can be very skilful at making it seem as if the victim is chasing them, or even making the victim believe that they want them. Most grooming type offences are characterised in exactly this way - the schoolchild really does believe at the time that they want the adult teacher, otherwise it wouldn't happen. Its part of their modus operandi. Crimes are composed of the mens rea (intention) of the crime and the actus reus (act), and proving the intention of the victim is not really relevant. In practical terms, you are basically suggesting that teachers who have sex with willing schoolchildren should not be criminalised, because they can get those children to think that they want them. When in fact, there are many examples of children who later in life realise who traumatised they have been, how their lives have been adversely affected, and so on.
Now you could argue that because we have an adversarial system, our criminal law is characterised by all sorts of things that affect sentencing, but its a balancing act, and as a society, we simply do not find it acceptable to go around thinking that children entice adults who have a position of trust over them. We expect those adults to exercise restraint. I'm not sure what type of society you want to live in, but I don't want to live in one where we require children to exercise more restraint in fending off their teachers, or in not allowing themselves to be attracted tot hem, than the other way round.
HelenPat There's no need for people to go apeshit on the judge just for explaining why this man wouldn't get the same sentence as a more abusive case. It's her job to explain that and it would be the same if he committed any other crime, shoplifting, assault, even with murder you get different sentences depending on the circs.
Judges and judgments are criticised all the time, its part of how we as a society decide what makes good law and which cases will be followed by later cases as being good judgments. Its normal. Judges must perform a balancing act, but in this case the judge's comments have been pretty offensive, and it show poor judgement on her part. This is actually kind of irrelevant from the facts of the case, because the judge's comments, if not challenged, could be relied upon in later cases to do as you say, to downgrade the offence of grooming, particularly very skilled, clever grooming where the Accused is very successful in completely dominating and influencing their victim, as being some kind of lesser offence.