21 year old woman spared jail despite abusing 11 year old boy (sensitive)

[Sidge]

Has anyone seen this case in the news?

www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Swindon-babysitter-paedophile-Jade-Hatt-judge/story-27924480-detail/story.html

So she has sex with an 11 year old but it was OK because he was "up for it" according to his dad (who I read on the DM page had also had a sexual relationship with her).

It beggars belief that she was treated with such leniency IMO. I also hope that Children's Services are involved with the boy and his dad who seem to have some dysfunctional attitudes - how can any child of 11 be "sex mad"?!

I think it's very worrying.

[prh47bridge]

Yes, that was a case where the trial judge clearly got it wrong.

In this case there was no violence. The prosecution accepted that the girl had not objected to what was happening. The trial judge regarded that as a mitigating factor. The Court of Appeal stated clearly that it was not.

The sentence set by the Court of Appeal does NOT fall below the sentencing guidelines. It represents a 10.5 year sentence (which is within the guidelines) less a one third reduction because the defendants entered guilty pleas at the first reasonable opportunity.

The Court of Appeal could have gone higher - perhaps 9 or 10 years taking into account the guilty pleas. However, by no stretch of the imagination did the defendants get away with violent rape of an 11 year old girl.

[BarbarianMum]

OK found it. The rapists are Roshane Channer and Ruben Monteiro and the following is taken from the Mirror on-line:



The court of appeal later increased their sentence to 7 years, which still falls below the sentencing guidelines .

[BarbarianMum]

There was a really shocking case within the last couple of years where 2 men had sex (raped obv) an 11 year old, including on occasion in the stairwell of a block of flats, and received absurdly lenient sentances on the basis that she was "willing" . Presiding judge made very inappropriate comments similar to in this case too. Was referred to the Attorney General for resentancing, which I believe is what happened (Ie longer sentance). Will see if I can find it on line. It was truly shocking.

[prh47bridge]

Men have gotten away with violent rape of 11 year old girls because they claimed some bullshit about her "seductiveness" or whatever.

Evidence? I am not aware of any such cases in the UK.

the mum was appealing against the decision

Unfortunately she can't. As the law stands only the Attorney General can lodge an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence. The good news is that he has done so.

[Dickorydockwhatthe]

Here www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/13812345.___He___s_not_sex_mad__he___s_11______mum_of_boy_abused_by_Jade_Hatt_speaks_out/?ref=mr&lp=10

[Dickorydockwhatthe]

I saw this in the paper and the mum was appealing against the decision as she was absolutely furious and horried. Don't think it is therefore fair to say the boy was failed by his parents. He was failed by his dad and the system. The dad is just as guilty as the babysitter.

[VestalVirgin]

There's no reverse sexism there. Men have gotten away with violent rape of 11 year old girls because they claimed some bullshit about her "seductiveness" or whatever.


Anyway, the father of that boy should be sent to prison or, at the very least, removed from the child.
I have some suspicion that he has a part in what happened, especially if the young woman actually was immature and he had a sexual relationship with her. (What kind of man has a sexual relationship with a woman who is just 21 and immature for her age? If she had the maturity of a 16 year old ... that's borderline sexual abuse, too)

[Bambambini]

Me and my husband were like WTF when I read out the case to him. I have a 10yr old boy and live in the same town. My son is still such a little boy. Hearing an 11 yr old being talked of like this is awful, if he is "up for it" and sexually aware etc than that's even more awful. That the judge and the father can make these comments about a child is disgusting, if it had been about a young girl there would have been much more outrage. This poor boy has been badly let down by his father and the authorities.

[ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight]

And what ever happens to the judges who make these insane sentences? Nothing it seems

[DiscoGoGo]

Good.

[TheWildRumpyPumpus]

It has been referred back to the AG for a review of the sentence which is good.

[DiscoGoGo]

Another person saying there is sexism here.

There have been situations where men who abused girls under 13 have had similar comments made, and penalties reduced.

This is a problem with the judiciary and children, making it some kind of reverse sexism ignores the times this has happened the other way around and / or says that in those cases it was reasonable.

It's never reasonable when an adult engages in sexual activity with a child under 13, I can imagine really unusual circumstances where mitigation might be had, but it certainly isn't "Judge agrees she looks older" or to give weight to evidence a child is "sex mad".

here is one the other way around and I don't want to detract from the issue at hand but the claims that this doesn't happen the other way around undermines female victims and it's been repeated so many times on this thread, I don't understand why people are so keen to say it, I don't understand what purpose it serves to propagate that except to reinforce the idea that young girls are, well I don't even know. I don't know why people are keen to say this doesn't happen to female victims.

[LucozadeBreath]

Not going to give TMI but can say from personal experience that the way sex offenders are dealt with in this country is pathetic. Even with cases like this where there is blantant evidence of her guilt, she gets off Scott free?! I fail to understand how the father's choice to defend the woman who abused his son could make any difference in the mind of a judge or jury! I hope that this is just a serious failure on this particular court's part, and not becoming the norm when it comes to female offenders. We are seeing more and more women these days being caught having sex with children and getting either suspended sentences or being let off. If it was a male offender, everyone would be calling for his head on a platter.

[DiscoGoGo]

I really think this does need looking at. Each time this happens it just reinforces the idea that sometimes child abuse can be OK, regrettable but understandable, and that is just an awful message.

If the argument is that the woman has a condition that renders her genuinely as having a much younger mental age - as opposed to being "immature" - then the actions of the father should have been under serious scrutiny.

If the argument is as per the father that he's up for it (jesus) then again he sounds dodgy as fuck and that is a non argument and why is he privy to his son's thoughts on the topic anyway? And it's irrelevant, it carries no weight, it should not and must not carry any weight. He could not consent.

[prh47bridge]

Well that seems a bit nit-picky

Agreed!

The judge did decide it was an exceptional case

Yes he did. However, he did not find that there was an exception to the rule that a child cannot consent below the age of 13 which is what you said previously. He found that the child could not consent, which is why she was convicted, but this was, in his view, an exceptional case which justified a light sentence. I would agree that is a fine distinction but it is legally an important one.

We haven't seen all the evidence but I cannot think of any circumstances in which such a light sentence is justified. I hope there is an appeal against sentence.

[DiscoGoGo]

Well that seems a bit nit-picky.

The judge did decide it was an exceptional case, which is why he said what he did, and didn't send her to prison.

And it's not the first case where a judge has managed to find extenuating circumstances in the sexual assault or rape of a child under 13, even though in law a child that age cannot consent, and so judges pontificating about how the child is more mature, or looked older, or whatever it happens to be this time, is wildly unhelpful and undermines what the law is stating.

[prh47bridge]

I am appalled by the sentence but just to correct a couple of points...

it is statutory rape

There is no such offence in this country. Also only men can be convicted of rape since the legal definition of rape requires the offender to be in possession of a penis. The offence in this case was "causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity".

This is not the first time that a judge had decided there's an exception to that

No, the judge did not decide there was an exception (and I am not aware of any other judge doing so either). If he had decided that she would not have been convicted. The judge simply decided (wrongly in my view) that the circumstances of the case allowed him to ignore sentencing guidelines.

[PHANTOMnamechanger]

11?? 11 years old and described as sex mad and totally up for it, by his own dad.
It's bad enough when they describe a sexually active teenage girl of 14/15 as 'provocative, or 'grooming' the older male etc. Or claiming she was a willing participant. But this child was 11 FFS.

My god what the hell is going on in that family that he is being egged on to have notches on his belt at that age.

My son turns 11 soon. He and his peers are still very much innocents - sure they know about sex, they exchange playground jokes and some have likely seen unsuitable films and material online, and play 18 games. But mainly they are into footie and minecraft.

That poor child. That judge is a disgrace.

[Maggie3socks]

I was shocked at this story too. I hope the whole family is being investigated by social services and the boy gets the protection he needs. It sounds to me as if the father is the one who needs the custodial sentence.

[DiscoGoGo]

Really revolting verdict, awful. The law says children can't consent below 13, no ifs no buts no excuses. This is not the first time that a judge had decided there's an exception to that, it's just not right.

People saying it wouldn't happen the other way around, it has unfortunately.

The judges need some Fucking training or sacking of something. Every time this happens everyone says how awful and then it happens all over again.

[HaloEveSteve]

The dad sounds dodgy AF too, that should say.

[HaloEveSteve]

I was immature in some ways as a 20 year old but that didn't mean I was sexually interested in children! It is no excuse. The dad sounds dodgy as fuck.

I don't agree it would have necessarily been a different sentencing had sexes been reversed as I've read of cases where it is implied the girls were 'up for it' etc. Victims of sexual assault and rape rarely get justice it seems.

[LuluJakey1]

My understanding is that under the age of 13, consent can not be given and it is statutory rape so not sure how the judge has handed down this load of inappropriate shit. She should be jailed and on a sex offenders' register.

[Rivercam]

I heard about this and was appalled. Being immature doesn't excuse you. The boy was 11! It's not like he was a strapping 15 year old ( my 15 Year old is 6ft so looks older).

As other posters have said, if he was an immature male and she was a younger girl, then the book would be thrown at him and everyone would be calling him a sexual predator, paedophile etc.

The judge has seriously made an error here.

[BernardlookImaprostituterobotf]

I'm absolutely appalled, that poor little boy. His father won't advocate for him or protect him and now the law has done the same. He is absolutely not being a fit parent.
There are plenty of male sexual offenders in custody with low IQs, learning difficulties and/or their own very troubled backgrounds. Her actions certainly seem to show she is equally predatory as some of them.
I can't scroll back to CP the comment about sex reversal but I certainly do remember a fairly recent case of a young girl described as, paraphrasing, up for it and judges comments about her pursuing the male (teacher I think) I'm sure I read it here too but I can't seem to find the thread. Happy to be corrected on any details I've got wrong but sadly there do seem to be some judges who are woefully falling short in protecting children.