AIBU to think the judge’s comments in this case are completely inappropriate?

[Lizzie67384]

A male judge stated he thought the rapist was not a ‘dangerous man’ and that the 13 year old victim had ‘not suffered much degree of psychological harm’

I wonder what his criteria for a "dangerous person" is? The bar seems like it might be a bit too high.

I read the Mail article and the corresponding versions on the BBC and Guardian sites. The judge followed sentencing guidance and does not appear to have done anything wrong. That does not stop this rapist being a scumbag who should be deported immediately on release.

In any serious case like this a judge must assess ‘dangerousness’ based on a very strict set of criteria. They include past offending, behaviour since the incident, remorse, and likelihood of reoffending (which itself is judged by probation officers using a matrix, as well as their own subjective opinion on top of that). He may not be at risk of reoffending because he will be deported at the end of his sentence.

It’s basically a legal term that the DM have used to provoke an emotional reaction. I was in a case last week where a rapist had offended against 3 people in the most horrific ways, but because his offences were a decade ago and he had not (on the face of it) reoffended, he was not deemed to be dangeorus. It happens literally every day in crown courts up and down the country. I’ve never framed a headline on it, because it would be disingenuous of me to do so.

ETA the ‘psychological harm’ to the victim also has to fall within strict parameters. If the victim doesn’t describe ongoing mental health issues or trauma in her interviews or victim personal statements then the court cannot assume she has it. They are asked lots of questions about trauma and can hand over medical records if necessary. The court will have considered all of this.

Absolutely this. Inflammatory reporting by the DM to provoke exactly the response you had OP with no explanation of the actual legal definitions.

There is a certain threshold above which the victim is considered to have suffered "significant psychological harm". I presume that legal threshold wasn't met in this case. This wasn't a throwaway comment from the judge, but an explanation of why he cannot consider this a reason to change the offence from a Category 3 to a Category 2, which carries a (slightly) longer prison term.

Dangerous offender also has a legal definition, which again I presume wasn't met - maybe the judge was wrong, maybe he wasn't, I don't know.

Yes, we all want child rapists to rot in jail, but the sentencing guidelines are what they are. In fact, I think the judge has given the maximum penalty for an offence in that category, but I'm no expert.

Nobody wants to hear this, but he may have had some mitigation because of his age (21).

Any previous history of his own such as being discriminated against is also considered.

Why would him being discriminated against be a defence for rape?

Check that judge’s hard drive.

Immediately.

Sentencing guidelines give examples like negative experiences with authority, being in care, facing discrimination (probably racial in nature) etc as mitigation.

I suppose the feeling is that if you hate the police, are angry at the world and/or yourself, you’re more likely to offend.

Poor child. I am very pro-immigration.

‘Discriminated against’ - in what world would that possibly be considered as a defence or excuse for such abhorrent behaviour?

He’s an Iranian national, neither the police or the Home Office will state his immigration status. Regardless, I think he should be sent back to Iran once he’s served his pitiful sentence.

I’m not, and this is a perfect example of why.

In the UK sentencing guidelines. It’s appalling, but it’s there. Along with being under 25 and therefore being immature.

Yes but not for certain crimes - being discriminated against is not a defence to raping a child

How is he determining she has not suffered much psychological harm and how is a rapist not dangerous?

Some of these judges are truly useless. He probably sees the young girls as a “jezebel”.

Yep. He can do his full term and them be deported immediately.

The judge has not met a victim of rape or sexual assault nore has he ever been a victim either. Ignorant peice of s**t.

It’s literally there in the sentencing guidelines for this exact crime.

Under 13s aren’t treated differently either. Mitigation still can be considered.

Thanks.

This probably paints in a different light (and I know the DM definitely writes articles in a way
to forment hatred against foreigners and non-whites) but I then still have an issue with the sentencing guidelines.

It should not be the case that 7 years is ever viewed as acceptable for a rape case.

The judge will meet plenty of victims of sexual offences as they give victim personal statements right in front of them and IME they’re incredibly compassionate toward them.

How on earth do you know whether the judge has or has not been a victim themselves?

Sounds as though the guidelines need revisiting. I have teen DGDs, the thought of a piece of scum thinking it’s fine to rape a child sickens me, then being given a paltry sentence makes it worse. The child has to live with the violation for life.

Yes seven years is entirely insubstantial. Sexual assault sentences have risen significantly but some of them still seem inadequate.

Do we know the race of the judge then? Because it's the judge's closing remarks that are being scrutinised here isn't it?

The convicted man is a disgusting, dangerous sexual predator whatever race he is.

I agree about the DM though. I never click on it on purpose.

No it isn’t