Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think the result of this rape trial is disgusting

999 replies

joystir59 · 17/03/2017 20:48

Man gets off completely Scot=free for raping a 12 year old girl, and that this result gives such a wrong message to men, in a world in which girls are never considered too young anyway. I'm enraged!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

OP posts:
HandbagCrab · 18/03/2017 06:59

I would hope that the message is that you shouldn't have unprotected sex with '16' year olds you meet at taxi ranks as they could be younger and you might be raping them.

We've no idea if it has ruined her life or not. Everyone is falling over themselves to make sure this man is not blamed in any way for his actions though. It's not compulsory to have sex with people you've just met whether they say they're up for it or not. At 19 he should have been more than old enough to be making good choices. Having unprotected sex with someone who says they are on the edge of the age of consent was a foolish decision. Being 12 and wanting to be seen as older is not a crime.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 06:59

Well, if you're not certain the person you intend to have sex with isn't 13 or older then don't have sex with them. If they say they are 16, I would advise not to have sex with them. The chance of them being underage is too high.

FlyingElbows · 18/03/2017 07:00

Why the onus on him to do background checks and no suggestion of her responsibility to tell the truth? Have you ever asked a sexual partner for legal ID or did you just believe what they told you was true because you had no reason not to?

IamFriedSpam · 18/03/2017 07:02

Graphista I find it very unlikely that the police officers deliberately misjudged her age? They have literally no motivation to do so. NO one is claiming the police officers have super human abilities to judge age, we're only suggesting that they are likely to represent the views of a "reasonable person". In the eyes of the law of a "reasonable person" would think the girl was 16 that's god enough.

If the police officers and taxi driver - none of whom had any motivation to assume the girl was older than she was both took her to be older than 16 it's fair to say that that represents the view of a "reasonable person". Hence it was the right decision.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 07:04

AssassinatedBeauty:

But that isn't what the law says. The law allows the judge to make a discretionary order because his belief was so inherently reasonable - she looked and behaved over 16 and was out at 4am, unsupervised. He did nothing wrong by not attempting to prove her age.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 07:04

Trifle I believe you have a baby dd? I have a dd too. I wonder how you'll feel thinking back to this when she's 12. Mine is 16. I would no way accept this verdict were it to happen to my dd.

I have through her and in various voluntary roles worked with teen and pre-teen girls over many years. I have seen how they can dress up and try to appear older. I find it extremely hard to believe a 12-year old could look, sound, seem to be any older than 15.

I strongly suspect she said she was 16, he thought she was 15 but took the risk anyway, thinking it was no big deal as he was only 19 himself and there's such ambiguity in this country about how underage sex is treated. (Which is a problem in itself).

Then being told he was in big trouble for shagging a TWELVE yr old I'm sure it was a shock, doesn't make it right. Tears? Many abusers cry when caught, plead innocence/ignorance/manipulation. So that means nothing.

Rapist, should have received an ACTUAL sentence as one.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 07:07

So children need to be responsible, whilst also under the age of consent, and adults should be expected to believe what they say.

I've not had a sexual partner that was under 18, and I've never had sex with a total stranger that I had only met that night. If a potential sexual partner told me they were 16, I'd have given it a miss, even when I was 18 or 19 as they'd be too young for me and the possibility they were underage would have dawned on me. Why can't we expect adults to think about this before having sex? If you don't know the person at all, then caution is required or accept the consequences which could include a criminal conviction and appropriate sentence.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 07:07

Graphista:

My DD has nothing to do with this. Leave her out of it, please. Judges, police officers, social workers etc. are frequently parents of girls. That does not discharge them of the obligation to act justly and think objectively.

HappyPaddyDay · 18/03/2017 07:09

Because it's wrong morally and legally and doesn't enforce the law.

Legally it was perfectly acceptable and in line with what can and could be done. There are no sentencing guidelines.

Morally, well that's a judgment call (no pun intended) and many here agree with her and lets face it, men of any kind get short shrift on MN let alone someone who did (technically) rape.

I think the act was morally wrong but lacking mens rea so entirely that when combined with a more than reasonable belief from many responsible adults the sentencing was correct.

I don't think the sex of the police officers or taxi drivers was mentioned to the PP who pounced on 'other men' backing up another man.

a short suspended sentence

An acquaintance got one of those for a driving offence. Is the message you want to send out that statutory rape and a driving offence are the same? I suspect not. The message should be that on occasion, the law makes provision for a judge to use common sense for the best outcome. The lack of minimum term if found guilty in this legislation seems to be the provision.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 07:09

AssassinatedBeauty:

Not being as cautious you would like him to have been isn't a criminal offence. A criminal offence requires intent or a criminal level of negligence. The judge's decision reflects the fact that neither existed here. The boy had a reasonable belief that she could consent, even if that belief was wrong.

Wingsofdesire · 18/03/2017 07:10

Are the parents being tried for negligence?

mainlywingingit · 18/03/2017 07:12

He's 2.5!

The amounts you say he has rated are just huge amounts, it's not a surprise his body wants a smaller meal by the evening . You are after all choosing his portion size for him without knowing how hungry he is.

Also 3 pieces of toast by 9am is a bit ridiculous too I think. An adult wouldn't eat that much. It's not a surprise some evenings he won't be hungry. I would limit portion size to be more age appropriate and pull forward his supper to 5pm as tiredness will be contributing.

Don't use bed time as a punishment. Bed time is a positive thing.

Wingsofdesire · 18/03/2017 07:13

I think under one law or another it ought to be possible to prosecute parents for letting a 12 year old girl out dressed and made up to look at least 16 and closer to 19/20, and not monitoring her whereabouts and allowing her to stay out all night. She also must have had money from somewhere for the club, etc.

More reason to prosecute them for that than him for being lied to, I think.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 07:14

So it's a legal defence to having sex with an under 13 year old that you believe them, reasonably, to be 16? Reasonable being based on what the child looks like. So as long as a child looks 16 it's ok legally and morally to have sex with them, even if they're actually under 13?

The "boy" in question was a man of 19, not a child.

Deadsouls · 18/03/2017 07:15

mainlywingingit

Wrong thread!

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 07:15

Wingsofdesire the girl in question could easily already be in care, so it would be the care system that might need prosecuting instead of parents.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 07:16

' "All" the time or rarely?'
Have you SEEN our rape/sexual assault conviction stats?!

'Why is the onus on him' because he is the adult! Plus the onus is on potential perpetrators not to commit the crime NOT on victims to not become victims!

I didn't say those officers deliberately misjudged her age. But they DID misjudge her age so at the very least they can't be relied on to do so in the future in similar cases, they may have lacked experience, they may have exaggerated how long it thoroughly they spoke with her, they may have been distracted...

Trifle our daughters are EXACTLY why this kind of thing needs to be done right! So they are protected and safe.

Also he is not a boy, he is a man. He neglected to make certain of her age, to consider she may be underage. That's good enough for me.

Wingsofdesire · 18/03/2017 07:17

Yes I thought of that, which in some ways would make it even worse - she's in care, so under the care of the government and the law-making body, and she's allowed out all night at 12 done up to look 20. ? Great.

SOMEONE was supposed to be in charge of her. Because she was only 12. And whoever that was DIDN'T do their job. Not at all. They are the ones who let her down dreadfully.

STFU · 18/03/2017 07:18

So it's a legal defence to having sex with an under 13 year old that you believe them, reasonably, to be 16?

No, no one has said so. He pleaded guilty and it was in the judges hands. She decided that, with all of the factors in this case (not just her appearance but the location and time, the police officer's and driver's accounts and CCTV evidence) to sentence him appropriately.

Wingsofdesire · 18/03/2017 07:20

Trifle our daughters are EXACTLY why this kind of thing needs to be done right! So they are protected and safe.

I won't be entrusting my daughter's 12-yr-old safety to how old people think she looks on a night out tarted up to look 20.

Her safety is entrusted to ME, and she sure as hell won't be going out all night at 12 and looking like that.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 07:20

AssassinatedBeauty: It isn't that it is okay - of course, from the perspective that the child is a child, it's not okay. Hmm If you know they only look 16, it is still a crime. The question is one of belief because it is belief that creates mens rea - this is required for a crime to have taken place. In this case, as I understand it, there is a technicality within the law that means the requirement for mens rea is not needed if the child is under 13, reflecting the fact that it is incredibly serious for this to happen. BUT there is also the provision within the law for the absolute discharge, reflecting the fact that there is very strong evidence that his belief was shared by others this child encountered that night, was therefore reasonable, and therefore he hasn't done anything wrong.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 07:21

For all those who are stating that a man should not have sex unless he is absolutely certain of age, what are you suggesting exactly he should have done given the evidence in this case that she clearly appeared to be over 16??

The only thing really that could stop this is to ban casual sex, because as long as society holds that it should be acceptable, or at least legal, for casual sex this kind of scenario is always possible. I'm not arguing that we should outlaw it, but those arguing that this sentence was outrageous really need to come up with something better!

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 07:22

So under 13s are fair game if they're out late at night and they look 16? No worries about getting a criminal conviction on your record or being morally wrong? The judge will discharge you with no punishment, as it's ok to have sex with a 12 year old in those circumstances.

Wingsofdesire · 18/03/2017 07:22

12? She could be Year 7. What was she doing out like that? Why is there no info on that?

Wingsofdesire · 18/03/2017 07:22

Ha probably because she was in care and they didn't want to let on ...