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 judge in question has sat in the Old Bailey for quite a while. She will have to have considered the case in the context of other possibly worse cases she may we have come across. From what I could see from the sentencing guidelines he was at the top of the tariff for this offence. Sadly, the Judges may be aware of worse cases so if he gets the top of the tariff, what do they get?

I still struggle to see what's so dreadful about that sentence - if indeed it was said. "Fortunately" - was it unfortunate? Is it terrible to be glad that the victim didn't suffer great physical harm? "Minimal physical harm occurred" - that's a straight statement of fact. To decide that it's awful you have to assume that the judges ignored the other dreadful potential consequences of the crime, but we have zero evidence that they did ignore them, and a 17 year sentence that clearly suggests that they did not.

The sentencing guidelines require the court to consider if there is severe psychological or physical harm when determining what category of seriousness. Therefore, the judge had to decide based on the evidence presented if those criteria were met. It is not unreasonable that she stated whether or not the court thought that the threshold had been met.

The defence lawyers make me sick. Why anyone would want to do that job is beyond me. I know one barrister who does cases like this and says as her reasoning "everyone so entitled to a defence" so what, doesn't mean you have to facilitate it for them.

*is not so

The victim impact statement this child's mother prepared for court:

"When I was told about making a victim personal statement I was not sure I could make one as I was not sure there were any words or way of describing how this has affected me. I have however given it a lot of thought over a period of time and this is what I would like to say. The rape of my three-year-old daughter has affected every aspect of my life and I am convinced that it will affect me for the rest of my life too.

"Prior to this I had a fantastic and close relationship with my daughter. After finding out about the rape I could not even bear to look at her or be with her for a few days afterwards. I love my baby unconditionally, however, I now cannot bear to dress or undress her or bath her and ask her to do these things herself. I feel completely paranoid that anything I do such as touching her when she is naked will be viewed as inappropriate. It feels like all the innocence that she once had has now been lost. I cannot take pictures of her anymore and do not want to be in pictures with her. I am really worried that every time a mobile phone or camera is now pointed at her it will stir memories within her. Every time I look at her I just imagine her tiny body going through the trauma and being violated. I am paranoid about letting her have contact with other people as my trust of others has been destroyed and I am paranoid about my behaviour with her.

"I feel like I am being watched all the time. I feel like the worst parent in the world. I feel like I have failed my daughter."

She added: "Even though I have not seen the images or witnesses the rape myself it still plays through my head on a daily basis. They won't leave me.

"Directly after I was informed about it, it was constantly in my head 24 hours a day seven days a week. I have nightmares all the time. I have not slept properly since it happened. I have become depressed to the point that I struggle to get out of bed in the morning. I have no get up and go anymore and just sit around doing nothing. I hate being on my own and also hate being with people. I lack concentration to the point where I am unable to cook a meal.

"I have approached various professionals in order to get some help including my own doctor but have been offered no support and I feel that I am on my own and really struggling.

"I cannot get George Anderson out of my head. I do not want him there and I want it to stop. I feel so much anger and hatred towards him that it scares me. I am not the person I used to be. I have become scatty, irrational and generally not a very nice person. I used to be fun loving and enjoyed life. I especially enjoyed being a mum. I feel that this has all been taken away from me and I will never be able to enjoy these things again."

But as long as the child didn't suffer long lasting physical damage. I don't think I've felt more sickened in my life, tbh, as I do after reading the judge's comments.

Does anyone know how it came to happen - as in why the 3 year old was in hospital without a parent?

Jassmells, if you or someone you love were accused of a dreadful crime you or they had not committed, you'd soon be very grateful for those awful defence lawyers. Do you seriously want a system where people are simply slung in prison on the say-so of the police with no right to a decent defence?

what exceptional cases would warrant a life sentence

The crime in this case is rape of a child under 13. This is a separate crime from rape of an adult and carries a slightly higher sentence. However, the answer as to what warrants a life sentence is the same for both crimes.

Serial rapists where the individual offences are towards the more serious end of the scale (which is almost always the case for serial rapists) warrant life sentences. A number of serial rapists are currently serving life sentences. Where there was only a single offence of rape, I am only aware of life sentences being handed down when the attacker has also killed the victim and therefore has been convicted of rape and murder. It may be that it is possible for a single offence of rape to lead to a life sentence where there is no murder but it would clearly have to be so horrific that it goes well beyond my powers of imagination. Even if I could imagine it, I certainly wouldn't attempt to describe it in a public forum.

Disclaimer: What I am describing above concerns the sentencing guidelines and sentencing practice in the courts. It should not be taken as my personal views.

Agree with BashStreetKid regarding defence lawyers. A good friend of mine was once falsely accused of murder. Eventually forensic evidence proved that he was not guilty. However, if we took the approach Jassmells wants my friend would be in prison for a murder he did not commit and the murderer would still be free.

The golden thread that runs through British justice is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. They are therefore entitled to a proper defence whoever they are and however strong the evidence against them may appear to be.

Thank you for responding to my post prh47bridge.

I agree with you on defence lawyers but I will admit to wondering why any defence lawyer would want to argue for a reduction in sentence in this particular case.

"Does anyone know how it came to happen - as in why the 3 year old was in hospital without a parent?"

What relevance is that? Is that along the lines of the question "what were you doing out at that time of night/drinking/wearing that"?

"I agree with you on defence lawyers but I will admit to wondering why any defence lawyer would want to argue for a reduction in sentence in this particular case."

Someone has got to and the Perpetrator could have appealed this higher and got a even lower sentence and cost the Country a lot of money.

I agree that we do need to look at the sentencing for all sex crimes.

I will admit to wondering why any defence lawyer would want to argue for a reduction in sentence in this particular case

Barristers work on what is known as the cab-rank rule. If they are available they are obliged to accept any work in a field in which they are competent to practise, at a court at which they normally appear and at their usual rates. Anderson wanted to appeal against sentence and engaged a barrister to represent him. If the barrister he chose had refused to represent him they could be disciplined. If they did it too often they could be struck off. So it isn't about wanting to do so. It is about being required to do so.

The rule exists to ensure that anyone can get representation regardless of how unpopular they are.

prh47bridge & Birds I understand that, still uneasy about this particular case though and yes sentencing for sex crimes does need to be looked at and, imo, the tariffs harsher and no reductions.

MardyMarie Fri 02-Feb-18 00:42:14
Does anyone know how it came to happen - as in why the 3 year old was in hospital without a parent?

Not all children have parents.
Maybe the parent went home while the child was asleep to do some laundry, have a shower and pick up supplies.

This is all speculation, why is it relevant? Predators are predatory and look out for opportunities.

I don't think it could have been in hospital, a 3 year old wouldn't be on a psych ward. Just did a search and it said he raped her in her bedroom. Maybe a family member? If not must be a family "friend" I suppose.

I hope the mother gets some help, reading her statement I can't help thinking the child is going to be damaged by the mother's attitude as her depression and change in her relationship with her must have an effect.

I read something by someone who was raped as a child and she said she felt the legal case and the constant reminding by other people was worse than the rape. Thinking about it everyone on here talking about it might be part of the problem, when she is old enough to look online she might hate being the subject of so much discussion.

the sentence was reduced by 12%, presumably for technical reasons, i.e. the factors down on the guidelines didn't fit the facts of the crime for the longest possible sentence. I don't think the judge can do anything more than follow the guidelines. 17 years and 19.33 years are both long periods of time.