AIBU to question this judge's decision? (*warning - extremely distressing*)

[UpstartCrow]

A judge has reduced the prison sentence for a nurse who was found guilty on 10 separate serious offences against very young children.

George Robert Anderson, 28, worked at Torbay Hospital as a psychiatric nurse, was jailed for 19 years four months last year.
His lawyers today argued that his crimes took place over just a few minutes and that no lasting physical harm was done to the girl.
Judge Wendy Joseph QC reduced his sentence by 2 years.

The link contains distressing details.
www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/nurse-who-filmed-himself-raping-1141202.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Should his sentence have been reduced?
What do we have to do to get men to stop?

The Court of Appeal appear have decided that the trial judge did not apply a sufficient discount for the fact that it was a single attack.

It’s not the cutting of the sentence that is really the issue, but her comments:

"Fortunately minimal physical harm occurred to the child”.

"We accept that the sentence was not sufficiently reduced to reflect the totality”.

If she had said:

“This is an horrific crime, but I find the previous judge erred in failing to apply sufficient discount for a single attack, thus I am obliged to cut the sentence by x amount”, we would likely not be having this discussion.

We are all speculating on the basis of a very limited newspaper report why the sentence was reduced. Court of Appeal judgements are publically available so I would expect it to be published soon. We can then see what factors they took into account.

Tatiana
We don't know what she said. We only know what a newspaper has cherrypicked. The CoA generally say a bit more than one or two sentences.

The crime was recorded so there is no dispute of guilt. Castration would be about the only appropriate response to ensure the safety of small children in the future.

The sentence should have been increased not decreased, there are no mitigating circumstances ever for this kind of crime.

I cannot accept that a 3 year old did not suffer physical harm after being raped by a 28 year old man, it is just not possible. The article also states he plead guilty to two further assaults by penetration on a child under 13 years old and seven child abuse offences, the original sentence was more than warranted, I'd rather it had been life.

No the sentence should be increased to indefinite. How can this man ever be deemed of no risk to children?

The judge is a disgrace. Hand on heart if that were my child that fucker would be beaten to within an inch of it's life on release day.

17 or 19 years is nt vastly different when you think half that is only 1year difference.. If sentencing guidelines say it was too high then that is why we have an independent judicial system. Goes without saying how awful the crime with but as the child will not have been named I really hope that they don't remember anything of it and had a really happy healthy life.

If you think there are not mitigating circumstances and the sentence was too low then raise to your MP that you think the sentencing guidelines are too low. Judges do not have that much freedom to sentence as they want. They are operating within a framework / tariff for the offence.

We’re speculating on the basis of the judge’s own quoted comments.
Whatever factors were taken into account, the comments are unfortunate at the very least.

Judges have to take into things like the degree of violence used during the rape, the level of physical damage, the number of attacks, and other factors into account when sentencing, otherwise all rapes would be treated as exactly the same, and they aren't. There should be a sentencing report which explains the reasoning behind the sentence.

Surely you can do better than "probable male" as an insult?

These men should be locked up for life.

Tatiana
You can't tell me what the Judge said in context unless you were sitting in the CoA anymore than I can tell you. However, the full judgement will be publically available before too long and people can judge the Judge based on the totality of what she said rather than what is probably a very limited extract.

I’m [sho k] at the idea that there wasn’t a lot of harm done to the child because it was quick.
This Little girl was RAPED. Whether it was quick or not isn’t going to change the fact she was raped.
As for the ‘not a lot of harm’, I suspect that it might be a different picture when that child will become a teen or a young adult.

It’s outrageous tbh.

I’m sure she would have said more, I didn’t infer from the article that was all she said. But if the quote in the news article is accurate, and those sentences followed on from one another and were not broken up, then her comments are far from ideal:

^“Fortunately minimal physical harm occurred to the child. We accept that the sentence was not sufficiently reduced to reflect the totality.
We must accordingly allow this appeal and reduce the total sentence to one of 17 years."^

Information about sentencing guidelines can be found here
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/how-sentences-are-worked-out/

The specific guidelines for this sort of offence can be found here
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/sexual-offences-definitive-guideline/ (see p27 onwards)

It's very bad the sentence been reduced it's a disgrace what he's done . Children should not be put through these things they should be protected at all times

jurrassic it is not an insult, it is an observation. We all know NAMALT. Please don’t make this thread about men vs women. Please don’t take away from the horror that this child was subjected to and the fact that justice has not been services. This was a horrific crime, no derailing needed.

Sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with whether ‘fortunately minimal harm occurred to the child’ is an appropriate comment at child sex offence trial, whatever the context.

Wrt of ‘harm’ in terms of sentencing - the argument on this thread has been that physical damage is the least of it. It’s not possible to quantify at this point what harm this child has sustained.

Torbay not exactly a million miles from Plymouth where Vanessa George sexually abused toddlers, she admitted 7 and got 7 years minimum. It really isn't always men, the false belief that it is always men means that people like George can get away with this sort of thing. The review of the nursery where she worked blamed lack of supervision. If she was a man would they have supervised her more?

I don't know what her assaults amounted to, quite rightly as it is no one else's business, but women can be a danger. The reports at the time of what she said and what she used in these assaults are horrific.

When I first read the link I assumed he had assaulted a patient but I assume that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have a 3 year old on a psych ward would you? Hope not anyway. I think an indeterminate sentence like George got would probably be better but then again as she could get out in 7 years was distressing for the parents.

Children need protecting, let us not waste time point scoring about men v women.

I really dont see what more evidence the judge could have considered as mitigating?

Was the 3 year old dressed provocatively? Ffs a man and a man in a very trusted career has raped and filmed himself raping a child.

He also had child pornography on his computer so is complicit in the sexual abuse of other children.

He should be jailed for life and life should be life.

Laws need changing.

I’m assuming you have a penis Jurrasic otherwise why on earth would you assume the fact that rape is more likely to be done by a man as an insult?

It’s fact.

I cannot accept that a 3 year old did not suffer physical harm after being raped by a 28 year old man, it is just not possible.

You cannot possibly say that when you haven't seen the medical reports and the judge has.

We’re speculating on the basis of the judge’s own quoted comments.

We don't even know if those quotes are accurate, let alone the context.

'how can we stop people abusing children' - by having long, harsh sentences and NO second chances.