Are judges to be trusted?

[Spandex]

Whaaaaat?

Because this takes the biscuit!

The mens rea did not play a part in what this man was convicted of. The defendant was convicted of statutory rape-she was 10, so her consent is irrelevant.

Had she been over 13 then her consent is an issue in determining whether this was rape or simply unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 16.

The issue as to the defendant thinking this child older than she was does not alter the fact that this was a statutory rape-but it is an issue in mitigating his sentence for rape.

But it was not consensual sex. The girl was ten. Even if she said yes, surely the law says she cannot make that decision because as she is ten, she does not understand what she is getting into?

And I really think the 20 year old could have tried harder to find out her age because he was clearly suspicious about it. And 15 is still an age where many are sexually active, it is still against the law.

X posts with çhipkid.

It is against the law.

And he was convicted.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

i know an 11 year old girl who both looks and acts about 17! (believe me its terrible) her mother lets her stay out till all hours and she frequents pubs in our local town. as soon as i read this article i thought of her. this girl not only initiated sex (and performed a sex act on his friend) but was, by all accounts, dressed for the occasion in frilly underwear and a thong! now im sorry but her parents should have been in charge of this young vixen-to-be. how many of you with young daughters would allow the opportunity for this to go on? what 20something bloke is going to ask for ID from a girl who is offering it on a plate? which by all accounts she did?

Any 20 yo man who thinks a girl is underage should use his bl**dy common sense whether she's offering it on a plate or not. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences - as this one has.

It is absolutely clear that he was suspicious about her age but went ahead anyway. He has committed a crime in doing so and must now accept his punishment. It matters not that he thought she was 14 or 15 and was shocked to find out that she was only 10. He was pretty certain she was underage, just not certain by how much.

Perhaps this will make other men stop and think before getting their trousers down if they have any doubt that the girl is underage.

To be fair we do not know that he thought she was undergae or in what context he asled her age. He is 20. Maybe he asked her age to see if she was 16 or 18, or whatever, not if she was underage. When she responded, he could have thought she meant she was nearer 16 than his age.

And to be fair to this man, as soon as he found out he has pleaded guilty.

Is there a time limit as to how long someone is registered as a sex offender or is it for life?

(btw this has been a very informative thread)

I think there is a time limit. Only because I read about that contestant on Britain's Got Talent, who they discovered was a registered sex offender. It said that he was nearing the end of his term on the register.

but thats the point is feckle, he didnt think she was underage. the police said he was totally shocked when he was told. this girl was in care and escaped at the first opportunity, 'went looking for a man and she found one'. this was not her first sexual encounter...she did not even co-0perate with the police enquiry...he admitted his guilt and was punished quite rightly. the blame cannot though, be passed to the judge who sentenced him.

I belive so. Part of the sentencing would say how long he is to go on the register for I think. The rumours and stigma will last a lifetime thouhg, and he will have to dceclare it forever for certain jobs, along with his sentence.

Whether or not the child consents is irrelevant, since a child under 13 is legally incapable of giving consent. As far as sentencing is concerned, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines in a 2005 case (R v Corran) and said that sentences may vary quite widely depending on matters such as whether the offender believed the victim was 16, the difference in ages between the parties, relationship between the parties. It made clear that the purpose of the legislation (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.5) was to protect children under 13 from themselves as well as from others minded to prey on them.

And the problem is?

elesbelles, I really don't think it's right to call a 10yo a 'vixen to be'. And her parents are not in the picture as she's in care. Poor kid.

Some on here are talking as if some ten and eleven year old girls are some kind of vixens and sexual predators. Bonkers.

However knowing a girl of that age may seem, she is still ten or eleven years old. A child. And if she is "offering it on a plate," then she must be pretty screwed up and therefore needs even more protection even if from herself. Children can be manipulative of course but I don't think at that age they really truly understand or can handle certain situations.

no edam maybe not...but she is potentally a dangerous little girl who will 'go looking' again unless the 'authorities' pull their finger out and protect her..afterall none of this would have happened if she was being cared for would it? it was made clear that she went looking for a man..so by the grace of god went all men that night, and this poor bloke copped it for life didnt he? let me tell you that you heard it here first when the 11 year old that lives in my town does the same thing and its spread all over the news.

The point of the current law is to try to protect child victims whether or not they appear to consent. If the child appears to be 16 and to consent the court will take that into account when sentencing. But it is still rape and still a serious offence. The sentence in the case mentioned below can be appealed against by the prosecution and a higher sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal.

Girls of 10 and 11 can look much older. I did.

They can also be sexually active and, in that they actively look for sexual encounters, predatory.

Of course they are damaged. It is a dreadful, dreadful situation for such a young child to be in.

This man was convicted of rape. He wasn't aquitted.

lillymaid i know the law. he admitted rape as he should have done...and he was rightly punished for it i have no qualms with that. but the thread is about the judges..and it was the judge in question that sentenced him on the facts of the case, which was, that this girl went looking for a man...any man.

Ah well, if she went looking for a man then she's to blame. She was probably wearing a mini skirt too. What on earth could she expect then? A responsible adult - even a redblooded lusty man - to take her to one side and make sure she got home ok?

But this man did not think she was a 10 year old child! That is the point. Even her own lawyers say that this was the case and that she did not look or act as a 10 year old. So he was not to know she was so vunerable.

Message withdrawn

I'm still not convinced he was certain she was of age. Why ask her twice then?

And I guess ultimately my point is more referring to those on here who seem to think 10/11 year old girls deserve what they get if they act precocious.