Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Rapists jailed for just 40 months after judge says 11-year-old victim was 'willing'

217 replies

KRITIQ · 22/02/2012 14:46

story here.

"Judge David Farrell QC jailed them both for just 40 months each as he accepted the claim that she was willing and looked "at least" 14."

Funny, but I thought 14 was still under the age of consent for sex with a 21 year old man, quite apart from the fact that how a girl or woman "looks" should NEVER be a justification for rape, full stop.

I despair.

OP posts:
SweetGrapes · 27/02/2012 11:42

Isn't this institutional sexism?

SweetGrapes · 27/02/2012 11:45

I'm thinking about the institutional rasicm and following review etc that happenned after the steven lawrence case and wondering what could bring on something like that.
At least on paper we have equality right? Or is that questionable too?

WildEyedAndHairy · 27/02/2012 12:14

Totally sickened by this when I saw the petition mentioned on Facebook. I didn't realise that judges have to have what is known as a 'rape ticket' before being able to try these cases. So presumably this judge has actually undergone some specialist training in the subject. Words fail me when trying to imagine what this training entails...

jshm2 · 27/02/2012 12:22

To be honest it looks like a miscarriage of justice, and the judge has pandered to the "Daily Mail" crowd by pressing charges.

If the judge is admitting that the defendant (she was not a victim if she was willing) was a consenting participant then no crime of rape has been committed.

At most he can say they had underage sex. But even then, if the girl was found to have lied about her age then they are not guilty.

I don't see what some posters are frothing at the mouth over. Your living in a cave if you think ALL kids these days are what you imagine them to be.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 27/02/2012 12:37

"if the girl was found to have lied about her age then they are not guilty."

Not true. Maybe best to do some research into the actual law before commenting?

GeekCool · 27/02/2012 12:37

jshm2 I don't even know where to start with your post and how wrong it is.

GeekCool · 27/02/2012 12:40

In fact, yes I do, key point is here:

both men pleaded guilty to a single charge of rape, and will have to sign the sex offenders' register for life

They both admitted to raping the girl. So how can they rape her, yet she was willing? It's completely non-sensical. They raped her, they ADMITTED it.

AyeRobot · 27/02/2012 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

AyeRobot · 27/02/2012 12:46

They had no defence to rape, because she was 11. 11 year olds can't consent in law.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 27/02/2012 12:49

I was going to link to the relevant law, but it's so short I can just C&P. Sexual Offences Act, 2003, Section 5.

"Rape of a child under 13

(1)A person commits an offence if?
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and
(b)the other person is under 13.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life."

It's what's called a crime of strict liability; it doesn't matter whether the man believed the child was 14, 19, or 46, they're still liable to life imprisonment.

Or not, as in this case. Hmm

GeekCool · 27/02/2012 12:50

Exactly Aye so is the judge saying in fact in some rape cases the victims were willing? Does that not set an entirely dangerous precendent. Of course it perpetuates common myths but also gives the impression of 'girls will enjoy your completely unwanted and unwarranted sexual assault, no matter their age'.

duchesse · 27/02/2012 12:51

It is not legally possible for an 11 year old to consent to sex. I would sincerely hope that the CPS will appeal because legally the verdict and sentence are a nonsense.

duchesse · 27/02/2012 12:54

jshm1- you turnip! It is up to the man to ensure that the girl (who I do not believe looked above the age of consent, particularly if the judge stated she looked 14) is actually of legal age. A boy of 15 would not get into as much trouble as a boy of 17 for having sex with a 14 yo as there is provision in the law for more or less the same age partners, but the full weight rightly is brought to bear on adults (as these are) having sex with underage girls.

GeekCool · 27/02/2012 12:54

I've been ignoring the 'she looked 14' defense. It's the 'willingness' and the 'girls need protecting from themselves' bit. Of course we don't need protected from rapists, just ourselves.

BlackSwan · 27/02/2012 13:19

An appalling decision - this judge should not be trusted with the enforcement of law. What is the address for his chambers? I think he deserves some strongly worded letters from mumsnetters.

AyeRobot · 27/02/2012 13:31

Geek, I am apoplectic, so am not typing much because if I start I won't stop. I agree with what you're saying.

They pleaded guilty because there is no defense (as Boulevard points out) if there is evidence of intercourse so they get the time off for a guilty plea.

swallowedAfly · 27/02/2012 13:34

i agree that if this is allowed to stand it sets a precedent that if a judge believes the girl looked older and/or was 'willing' he can ignore sentencing guidelines. both of those 'conditions' that he has deemed relevant actually directly contradict the law - there is no mention of consent or appearance of age. it's funny that a shopkeeper can be prosecuted for selling an alcopop to a willing 16 year old who looks 20 and told them she was 18 because it's his/her responsiblity to determine their age and yet adult men can get a light sentence for raping an 11 yo on the grounds of her willingness and looking 14 Confused

does the court think it's more harmful to drink a bottle of WKD than be gang raped in a stairwell?

swallowedAfly · 27/02/2012 13:34

am i right in assuming it would cost an absolute fortune and take an eon to qualify as a lawyer?

swallowedAfly · 27/02/2012 13:37

in fact on the 'licensing' issue because of how ambiguous people's ages can appear to the untrained eye they've introduced this idea that you should look 25 (despite only having to be 18) and if you don't look over 25 they have to ask for ID and not sell alcohol without it being presented.

yet men can gang rape children with no responsibility for ascertaining their age? it's reasonable for a man to have sex with a child of dubious age with no responsibility to ensure that he is not raping a child but a off licence has the responsibility to ensure someone looks over 25 or produces ID to buy a beer.

madness

edam · 27/02/2012 13:46

The office for judicial complaints can't look at comments on the conduct of cases, it appears, from their website. So Attorney General/MP seems to be the only route available. If you write to your MP, ask them to raise it with Kenneth Clarke, the justice minister who is NOT a friend of women - is merrily abolishing legal aid for victims of domestic violence at this very moment.

SardineQueen · 27/02/2012 13:47

I can't believe someone has come on this thread of all thread with a "poor menz" comment.

"Yes those poor adult men being forced to have group sex with an 11 yo (which is by definition rape), having to video it and circulate it amongst their friends.

God knows that primary school girls are just asking for it and they are always leading grown men astray. From birth upwards, they are asking for it. And if a 7yo gets confused and tells someone she is 8 then you can rape her. Hurray!

Such a shame that these kind upstanding men even got prosecuted in the first place. They didn't do anything wrong! I blame feminists."

Original poster
KRITIQ · 27/02/2012 14:00

Just thinking back to when I was 11. I hadn't started periods yet, but was quite tall for my age. I was regularly assumed to be older than I was and like most kids at that age, was quite proud of that fact.

There were other girls in my class who had entered puberty - physically, but emotionally they were still very much children. I remember one girl though a year older than me who was very shy, but seemed to know alot about sex and started having boyfriends, quite alot older than her, soon after that. When I was in 8th grade and she was in 7th (that would be 13 and 12,) she disclosed at a slumber party that her uncle had been "touching her" since she was much younger. I guessed from her reaction that there was more than touching going on. We were all just kids, felt embarrassed, didn't know what to say or do, so said nothing.

An 11 year old who appears "willing" to engage in sex wouldn't have got there without being abused and exploited by an adult at some point. The judge in this case, and jdshm upthread seem to be saying that if a girl's been sexually abused, she's fair game to use and continue to abuse - sorry, "have sex with, consensual sex."

It worries me that there are alot of adults out there (I assume jdshm is an adult) who believe it's okay for an adult to have sex with an 11 year old.

OP posts:
HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 27/02/2012 14:08

I also don't think that these men have trouble ascertaining age (at least not within a year or two). They just choose not to. There is no reason this planet that a 21 yr old should be having sex with an 11 yr old, even one that looks 14 Hmm

Original poster
KRITIQ · 27/02/2012 14:12

Swallowed makes an excellent point here about ascertaining age in other areas of the law. A newsagent or off license proprietor couldn't claim as mitigation that a 15 year old "looked 18" so they sold them tobacco or alcohol. They would also receive no leniency in fines or sentencing because they claimed they didn't know the true age of the customer. Why shouldn't exactly the same apply in cases of adults having sex with children?

OP posts:
BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 27/02/2012 14:14

(saf - if you already have a degree, you need a one year Graduate Diploma in Law (7-8k) then a one-year Legal Practise Course (around 10k) to qualify as a solicitor)