Wtf have I just read?? [CONTENT WARNING: sexual assault]

[Memyselfmilly]

Yes the article is from the Daily Fail and no I’m not here to rant about migrants. I want to know why in 2024 it was acceptable for a defence lawyer to describe a rape of a 15 year old girl as a ‘one off’??

Surely 1 rape or a thousand… it doesn’t matter. It makes you a monster who is a risk to society.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14101065/migrant-raped-impregnated-virgin-deportation-Africa-jailed.html

[Title edited by MNHQ to add content warning]

YABU to post without any indication in the title of what the thread is about.

He’s a defence lawyer he’s going to try and mitigate the circumstances. That’s his job, to try and get his client off.

Doesn’t seem the judge was swayed by it!

That's literally the job of the defence lawyer.

It doesn't mean anybody accepts this as 'yeah no worries then'

It's how the legal system works. Everyone is entitled to representation and a defence argument.

Defence Lawyer with the morals of a criminal. It's his job to defend these monsters I know, but stooping to that level is disgusting.

that poor girl. The real 'one off' here is her life, not how many girls he's been caught raping. Poor poor kid 💔

It's exactly what defence lawyers do 😳

I would've thought even Daily Mail readers would understand that.

Defence lawyers are duty bound to present the best possible defence for their client.

One could certainly argue that a one-time rapist is morally better than a serial rapist and should therefore receive a lesser punishment.

To be fair, there isn’t much anyone can say to defend that. Saying it is bad but wasn’t repeated is like the only possible angle frankly. At least he can’t complain/appeal about having poor representation

We don't have the exact words the lawyer used. It appears he means that his client isn't a repeat offender, and it's a valid point to make in mitigation. It's clear that the judge didn't at any point lose sight of the gravity of the offence.

It's important that we don't try to interfere in defence lawyers doing their jobs.

Yeah defence lawyer doing some defending. Find something else to be falsely outraged at.

There are aggravating and mitigating factors to consider when sentencing. Defence has a duty to provide the mitigating ones.

It's not to make light of what happened, its part of the process.

If things aren't done properly there could be grounds for a retrial, which is a huge expense for the public purse and additional trauma for the victim.

This. The defence barrister is supposed to raise any applicable mitigating circumstances, of which the fact that it was an isolated/first offence is an important one. Failure to raise it could potentially lead to accusations that the barrister had deliberately not defended their client to the best of their ability, which would render the conviction unsafe (more likely to be overturned on appeal) and jeopardise the barrister's career.