Jeremy Forrest on trial

[PatPig]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339495/Jeremy-Forrest-ran-away-France-schoolgirl-secret-relationship-exposed.html

Slightly absurdly, his 15-year-old girlfriend, all over the newspapers at the time, is no longer allowed to be named.

5 1/2 years, thoughts?

Sentence: 5 1/2 years for sexual activity with a child, plus 1 year for abduction. To run concurrently.

He has already served the first 9 months of that. I think that is how it works?

Oddly enough, I expected a sentence of around 5 years.

Apparently the charges were laid this morning, they converted the court into a magistrates court to charge him, and then back into a crown court to sentence him.

I'm not sure if the reason for the abduction charge relates to the original extradition, because that was the grounds for extradition, and maybe they had to go with that or be breaching their extradition treaty. Obviously they knew about the sexual activity for months, so it must have been planned that they would spring this charge as soon as the original trial was over.

I'm not sure if he/his lawyers were aware though, it seems a little dubious if they weren't.

I mean it just seems bizarre that they would go through all the expensive of a trial with him pleading not guilty to abduction by saying that she went willingly or whatever, if he knew he was going to be charged with sexual activity with a child, to which he had no defence.

all the expense, even.

I can't find the judge Mr Michael Lawson QC's sentencing remarks anywhere. Has anybody seen them? (Or did he not make any?)

I suspect the word abduction is being used in its technical sense, (rather than in its dramatic sense) hence the short-looking sentence.

He did make sentencing remarks (BBC mentioned that in passing - I was all happening at time of lunchtime news) but haven't seen/heard proper account of them yet.

The guardian says he wasn't charged with the child sex offences until after the abduction trial because of the extradition conditions.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/jeremy-forrest-jailed-pupil-sex-abduction

Personally I think the sentence is very light.

Five-and-a-half-years is quite a long sentence, in British penal terms. You can do some pretty horrific things and get less than that.

It's a clear message that you can't have sex with your pupils, tbh.

Well I'm not really interested if other sentences are too low; having sex with a vulnerable child in your care and abducting her by taking her to a foreign country..he'll be out in 2 years. I think that is short and just hope it is enough time for his victim to get out of his clutches.

5 1/2 years?
stewart hall is busy counting his lucky stars

He'll only potentially be out in 2 years because he has already served 9 months.

It's longer than other people have served. www.bedminsterpeople.co.uk/Bristol-school-worker-Jon-Davies-sentenced/story-18210852-detail/story.html

Stewart Hall sentence was a fucking disgrace.

As I said Patpig, just because others have had sentences that are low does not make me think this was reasonabe; more that theirs were far too low.

I don't think this country takes abuse against the vulnerable seriously enough.

If the Oxford 7 get eye-watering sentences, which I'm hoping for, then I'll reserve judgement on how seriously abuse is taken here.

Judge's comments www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23005747

Spot on I'd say, exactly what I was hoping for. I'd say the sentence length is a significant disappointment; it could have comfortably been double that. But it's a step in the right direction.

Five and a half is too much, sorry. Compare for instance the storey below, longer I know, but.....

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/seven-years-for-teenager-who-kicked-gay-man-to-death-2195142.htm

Mugo, that's a totally different type of offence. I'd be happy to see paedophile teachers locked up for ever, frankly.

I may well have missed this bit of info somewhere but in the second Mail article Op linked to (where they have just gone missing), why is there no mention of him being a teacher? In the article he's supposedly a 'family friend'.

And I'm also surprised that,with his criminal record, he would have been allowed to teach anyway.

So was he actually teaching when the relationship developed (not necessarily her)?

So, had abduction been the only offence and he got a one year sentence for that, he would have been released taking into account time already served.

Thehuf - that may have been a request from the police, who believed it would help their investigation, or that specifying the exact nature of their relationship would harm it.

Sadly the teacher's history fits into a long story of child abuse scandals at Bishop Bell school with previous teachers and the Chair of Governors. Despite all that, the head and senior leaders turned a blind eye to Forrest's grooming of this girl, even when children and teachers were warning about it. I don't know why those in charge at that school are so happy to allow children in their charge to be sexually exploited again and again.

I think there are definitely questions to be asked about Bishop Bell. Two serious offences by teachers in 3 years...?