Are judges to be trusted?

[Spandex]

Whaaaaat?

Because this takes the biscuit!

20 yr old men are still pretty immature ime

Hadn't realised the man was 20yo. Nor that the child had been acknowledged to look 16yo by both sides of the court.

Not read about the case. What happened? Was the child raped - as in forced? I know a 10 year old can't agree to sex, but YKWIM. Did the 20yo man think he was having compliant sex with a 16yo, or was he trying to attack and rape someone he thought was 16yo?

I think this sort of hang em and flog em mentality is exactly the reason why judges shouldn't be elected

better to appoint people who are judged appropriate by their peers/laypeople/etc

although I do think there is a case for saying appt shouldn't be for life, but reviewed every 5 yrs or so (not that I think this judge necessarily has done wrong in this case)

Hula, there is a link neear the beginning of the thread which explains

thought he was haviing compliant sex with a 16yr old
she initiated
she had had sex before
he was in complete shock and horror when he found out her age
poor bastard

The point is the man asked the girl's age and she replied "Does it matter?". That alone should have started alarm bells ringing - oh and didn't he pass her on to a friend of his who sexually abused her too??

Thanks Mercy; will go and read properly now.

I think she consented, so he thought he was having consensual sex with a 16 year old. It is classed as rape BECAUSE she was 10.

It was consensual. She looked older (and when we think of 10 year olds, we think of dresses and pigtails - the reality can be very different). He admitted guilt. He is now a registered sex offender. Not simple.

From Minty's summary it does seem like a very sad, tragic accident on his part. A miscarriage of judgement, rather than a deliberate attempt to sexually abuse a young child.

being reckless as to the age of the victim-when the victim could easily pass as somebody over the age of consent is wholly different to having sex with a ten year old child when there is no room for doubt or mistake.

how many of you had sex with people within 5 years of your age when you were under 16? Lots I'll bet

he asked her age - she said does it matter - he probably thought she was 15.

He has admitted statutory rape, been given 18 months suspended, and put on sex offenders register.

What more do you want to do with him? CHuck him in prison for a horrible mistake? How is that going to help anybody?

agree chipkid

I would have done the same as Judge Evans

Freckle - where did you get the other bit?

The article on BBC does make it sound as though the man himself is also a victim in all this. His life is now in tatters for this. He will never get a whole range of jobs. He will be on the sex offenders register. He will be judged forever. If and when he has his own children he will be monitored and watched, his children probably on the at risk register. His name is known to all and sundry.

I really don't think this is a case of a 20 year old man rapes a 10 year old. Those facts do not represent what actually happened at all if what I am reading is correct.

completely agree Hula

that 10 yr old child has clearly been seriously failed all her life, and now his life is up the swannee as well

I honestly think sending him to prison would be the complete undoing of him. The whole situation is nightmare enough for him

Hula, do you mean the bit about where he asked her age? It was on the link lower down.

I do think that asking her age indicated that there was some doubt. The fact that she dodged the question should have made him think a bit harder.

I do agree that this is different from knowingly forcing sex on a 10 yo; nevertheless, he was at the very least negligent and/or indifferent to her age and has paid the price.

The fact that he was visibly shocked might be more to do with her actual age, i.e. 10, than the fact that she was underage - which he probably guessed.

fair enough frek
but if she was eg 15 this would never have come to court

True enough, but the age of consent is there for a reason. The fact that the system doesn't uphold it shouldn't be a reason to ignore it entirely.

No Freckle - you said he passed her onto hsi friend who then sexually abused her???

I agree that he probably just thought she was 15. And how many times on MN do we hear that there are loads of people sexually active, willingly, at that age - and how normal and okay it is? If she had been 15 this would not have gone to court.

It's not been ignored. He is a registered sex offender.

The law does distinguish between the different ages of children under the age of consent. the offence of statutory rape is there to protect younger children. A 15 year old who is under the age of consent is treated considered less serious.

freck the difference is to do with consent and mens rea (did the older person think they were over 16 and was it reasonable for them to do so).

under 13 children cannot legally consent, so any sex is automatically rape. the mens rea element isn't a factor in deciding criminality

between 13 and 16 you look for consent (without it obviously it is rape) and then you look at mens rea, which they obviously did here in relation to sentencing - the 20 yr old thought she was over 16, it was reasonable for him to think so, all that was missing was consent, because of her age. Had she been 13 it wouldn't have been rape

Hula, no I think I was muddling this case up with the other one reported yesterday. Sorry.

I understand the concept of mens rea. My point was that there was sufficient doubt as to her age for him to be considered indifferent as to whether she had capacity to consent, ergo guilty of a sex offence.

I can understand if she said she was 16/17 and he believed her, but he questioned her age and she dodged the question, so he should have been put on his guard.

PPH (that is you being Minty, isn't it?) you said mens rea not a factor with under-13yos - so how come it was factor in this case with a girl of 10?