Man walks free from court after statutory rape

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Saw this news case today, and am not sure what I think:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

I feel that it gives the message that it's ok for men not to worry about the age of girls/women they have sex with if they have reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+.

So what we are saying now is we should keep our girl children safely in doors just in case some man accidentally penetrates them with his pen is thinking they are older

And not we she teach our boy children that picking up drunk girls in the taxi que regardless of whether they think they are legal/barely legal is a bad idea because that would be a violation of their human rights or something?

No one is arguing the girl should have been there.

However it was not the 12 year olds responsibility to make sure she wasn't raped any more than it is any other woman or girksxresponsibility to make sure they aren't.

Not just me with the Victorian autocorrect :o mines just been taping fabric round the piano legs

The issue of how she looked and acted is not to blame the victim but worry why the victim was able to do this at 12

Adult women should be able to go where they like, dress how they want and drink like a fish and still have no fear of rape.

This 12 year old should not have been there. We all agree. I think the emphasis of the discussion should be about her, and how as a society we help her. Pointing a finger and demanding jail time in this instance does not strike me as useful.

When is it useful for men to serve jail time for raping children?

I think the emphasis of the discussion should be about her, and how as a society we help her.

I think that's an important discussion, but a different one to the subject of this thread. Which was, commenting on the case 'I feel that it gives the message that it's ok for men not to worry about the age of girls/women they have sex with if they have reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+.'

Is that ok, or isn't it?

If your answer is "it's not ok" then what do you suggest as an alternative to having "reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+"?

"I just think it is being used to mitigate what a rapist did and I object to it." Exactly! The law says under 13 and the defence of a 'reasonable belief' that she was 16 isn't supposed to apply. This judge has been very canny by still convicting him but effectively handing down a null sentence. Outrageous!

"Its sad how people are quite happy to accept a rapists motives aa what he says they are." It's shocking! So much for 'we believe you' some posters need reminding that does NOT apply to the rapists!

Because people accused of a serious crime never lie eh!

"Of course the police officers are going to agree that the girl was older than she really was." It's common sense why they'd do this - because if they even hinted at admitting there was ANY doubt they would be in deep shit themselves (if they aren't already which I hope they are).

"None of those men have covered themselves in glory and all of them failed her." Absolutely agree! Neither has the judge.

Moussemouse incredibly arrogant and presumptive to say mners are some homogenous middle class untroubled inexperienced mass! I'm certainly not! My parents are working class background from a notoriously rough area of Glasgow, which I have frequented over the years. I've also through work as a nurse and in voluntary roles worked with vulnerable young people, seen how they try to appear, speak and seem older/more mature. Especially if they've been prematurely sexualised due to abuse/neglect.

I've spoken with my dd today about this (actually 16) Dd says she believes that a 19 year old, particularly being closer in age to the girl would AT LEAST have picked up she wasn't yet 16. We're in Scotland, if she's out and about of a weekend with pals, not even drinking, police regularly stop and talk to them, check ID if they think they may be very young. Any doubts and they're brought home and police check with parents. Dd is 5'9", slim but with curves, intelligent, articulate, even when not wearing make up looks older than she is. She still gets regularly id'd by police, shops etc.

So no, I'm not buying he genuinely believed she was 16. Which means he fails the mens rea 'test' too.

And believe me I KNOW how dirty, complex and confusing the world can be from personal experience!!

He burst into tears when the police told him how old she was and he admitted it.

Well he would wouldn't - he realised what shit he was in.

I think people should consider what reasonable grounds are. These threads are littered with people saying that they either know or were girls who could pass for 16 when they weren't. Which suggests that appearance is in fact an unreliable indicator of age. The ID thing is nonsense, obviously. For me it does come down to the idea that actually, it's very difficult to make an informed decision about the age of a teenager you have only just met. As I have said a lot (sorry), you then leave it up to the party involved. Are you sure enough to risk getting it wrong and going to prison? If you are, presumably because you have done more than look at her in the dark, then great. If not, then make a choice and stand by the consequences.

Fwiw Oscar Pistorious cried after shooting Reeva Steenkamp dead. Because he'd fucked up his life. Doesn't mean he didn't mean to pull the trigger.

*wouldn't he

Errol - I don't think that's the message of the sentencing statement, but might be a message someone could glean from the headlines or some of the tabloid articles.

It's the law that says (for 13+), that reasonable belief is sufficient. That's not the fault of the judge in this case.

And in this particular case the offender was still guilty, despite the extraordinary circumstances (and I do think the victim successfully fooling two police officers ,who were specifically there to identify children who were too young to be out, is pretty extraordinary). The light sentence reflected the extraordinary circumstances.

Whether people agree with the sentencing or not, this is definitely a case that ought to be reported responsibility, and used as a warning for (in particular) young people.

The law says under 13 and the defence of a 'reasonable belief' that she was 16 isn't supposed to apply.

Yes, it doesn't apply to the question of whether he is guilty of the offence. With the exception of a few offences (e.g. murder), judges have sentencing discretion for very good reasons.

This judge has been very canny by still convicting him but effectively handing down a null sentence. Outrageous!

"Canny" suggests good judgement. How is good judgement "outrageous"?

Canny can also suggest cunning.

In which case it wasn't cunning at all because, as I said, judges have sentencing discretion - everyone knows this. There's nothing "cunning" about a judge applying that discretion.

The fact that someone disagrees with the judge - who heard all the evidence, unlike the rest of us I suspect - doesn't suddenly make the judge cunning.

Judges can never be wrong then? And anyone else who isn't the judge cannot give an opinion on the sentence, because they haven't seen all the evidence?

It's arguably cunning to convict him yet give him an absolute discharge at the same time. A conviction with zero sentence, not even a suspended sentence, is unusual.

I've no idea what the other poster meant by it. Just musing really.

Here canny means cleverly sly, cunning. Outrageous because he's been convicted makes it difficult to address the judges decision to release him. Very rare in Scotland for lenient sentences to be overturned.

The following all cried when arrested/interviewed

Stuart hazell (Tia sharp case)
Adam Johnson
John venables and Robert Thomson
Nathan Matthews (becky watts case)

Also this particular judge does seem somewhat synpathetic to rape defendants.

Well they didn't hear all the evidence because he pleaded guilty.

For me it does come down to the idea that actually, it's very difficult to make an informed decision about the age of a teenager you have only just met.

I agree completely. And I get what you're saying, that someone who takes that risk should stand by the consequences. But the problem is that would mean any of the millions of teenagers who engage in casual hook ups could potentially end up as a sex offender if they're unlucky. The only way to be completely sure of preventing that would be to ban casual sex for anyone under, say, 25.

I do take your point that casual sex involves various risks which people might have to accept the consequences of. But you can take precautions against most of the common risks, e.g. pregnancy or STIs. You can't really take precautions against being deceived.

Graphista - do you know anything about her previous?

Judges can never be wrong then? And anyone else who isn't the judge cannot give an opinion on the sentence, because they haven't seen all the evidence?

You must be querying something that somebody else has said. You surely, can't be responding to my comment, as I said none of these things.

But the problem is that would mean any of the millions of teenagers who engage in casual hook ups could potentially end up as a sex offender if they're unlucky.

Well yeah, and that's why you have to be careful.

It makes a difference that he was legally an adult, although still technically a teenager. If he had been underage himself, this case would be viewed slightly differently.

In Spain, the rape laws take into consideration of the age gap between the two and whether one partner is an adult.

And adult has a responsibility to a child.

*In Spain - afair.