Judge Julian Hall does not see sex offences as crimes
16:51 Monday 25 Jun 07
Keith Fenn removes her clothes and rapes her.
Darren Wright takes her home and assaults her.
Keith Fenn will be free in 8 weeks.
Darren Wright is free already.
The girl was 10.
Judge Julian Hall said this was most difficult decision he had ever made but she looked 16 and was dressed provocatively.
This is the same judge that told a paedophile to buy his victim a bike.
Keith Fenn and Darren Wright deserve to have real justice meted out to them in a prolonged and painful way. They are paedophiles now - so where do they live?
If Judge Julian Hall has no problems with sex offenders that actually says so much about him and his attitudes. It’s not the law at fault here. It’s him. Maybe he thinks of little girls as sex objects too if he finds nothing wrong with it.
If the politicians want to restore faith in justice then he is the ideal sacrifice. Okay so no-one will believe a thing the politicians say but at least it’ll get this sex crime lover off the bench.
If his wife were mugged and battered would he accept the defence that “she looked rich” ? I doubt it, but why not?
No-one had the right to do that regardless of how a girl was or was not dressed. For them to do that renders them beneath contempt but for someone to say that it was okay just legitimised that behaviour for all other sex offenders and those that will hope he presides over their trial.
The sentences should be hugely increased - they have taken something away from the rest of her life - but Judge Julian Hall should be sacked. He hasn’t got a single bloody clue.
1
Perhaps I am being too judgemental (as opposed to Judge Julian Hall being a mental judge) but the only reason that I can see for his sickening comments is that he has some sort of sympathy for or affinity with paedophiles. I concede that I have no physical evidence of his sexual views towards primary school girls but based on his comments I can only cringe and imagine what kind of sick, twisted mind it takes to make the bicycle comment or to say that a 10 year old dressed provocatively. I would not leave my children alone with him based on the values he has displayed.
19:33 Monday 25 Jun 07
2
Oh my god, Is this fool so detached from reality…It does make you think what he’s into himself. What would have happened if it was his daughter and how does a man who clearly cannot think get in such a position of trust. God bless all our kids. This has really wound me up.
19:55 Monday 25 Jun 07
3
When I first heard this story the only thing I could think of was “Is the judge a paedophile?” OK so there is nothing in his actions to denote this i.e he’s never been accused or convicted of the offence but his words say a lot more.
He thinks the girl could pass for 16? That is still illegal (age of consent is 16 but only with another 16 year old AFAIK, not with a 24 year old). This is a horrific crime and 8 weeks is not even close to enough.
08:24 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
4
I too think that Julian John Hall must lust after young girls - what else can explain the apparent difficulty?
All we need now is for his daughters to reveal that he sexually abused them.
08:36 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
5
Neasan, There is no law that states a 16 year old can only have sex with another 16 year old. It is the age the law has decided one can make informed choices about sex. If you’re straight, that is.
You might find it morally wrong for a 60 year old to have sex with a 16 year old but it’s not against the law.
11:07 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
6
Hi, just heard about this story, and looking for more information on it came across this.
I feel that people are making a lot of this story purely on the use of the word ‘rape’. When people hear ‘rape’, they think of violence, or some sort of force being used on the victim.
This does not appear to be the case in this story. Rather, what appears to have happened, is that this 10 year old looked and behaved as if she were 16, and fully consented to what these men did to her.
However, a minor cannot legally consent to any sexual act, and thus any sexual act she does take part in would be considered statutory rape.
I don’t think for a second the judge has no problem with sex offenders, but rather saw the actions of the men as a genuinely honest [Although perhaps rather foolish for not investigating her age further at the time instead of assuming] mistake.
13:02 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
7
@Michael:
1 - He already let a paedophile off by making him buy a bike.
2 - Rape = violence? Yes if that means something which the person says No to. We don’t know what the girl did or did not do, but we DO know that the law says they raped her, that the law demanded they be punished and that Judge Julian Hall chose not to punish them.
You choose to give the males in this the benefit of the doubt.
I choose otherwise.
And that judge is incompetent.
13:19 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
8
In response to Michael with regard to the rape not being violent or with the use of force.
The girl was 10 years old. The slimeball obviously took advantage of a vulnerable child. If you really feel that she manipulated two grown men then please make an appointment with a psychiatrist at your earliest convenience. She may even have sought the attention but that does not excuse his actions. I can’t remember my own sexual thoughts (if any) from when I was ten but I do remember wanting to see naked women when I was a young teenager and I think this is probably normal behaviour.I have no personal experience of whether young girls feel the same about wanting to see naked men and I am not about to start asking them. However, it would not have been normal if a mature woman took advantage of that curiosity and abused me because of my curiosity. I appreciate that a 15 year old may pass for 16 and I concede this can be applied to 14 year olds or possibly even 13 year olds although I believe that for a 24 year old man there should be sufficient doubt to lead to further enquiries about her age even at 13 or 14. However, with a 10 year old girl it is quite apparent that at the very least he just didn’t care, especially when he raped her only 45 minutes after meeting her. I have very strong views on what should happen to paedophiles and I appreciate that they are rather extreme but so is raping a 10 year old.
19:04 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
9
Mark,
Re: 1, he was not made to buy her a bike, but rather was told to pay £250 compensation, given an 8 month suspended jail sentence, ordered to attend a sexual offender’s programme and was banned from being alone with minors for several years.
re: 2, yes, the law does state that she was raped and her rapists should be punished. I’m not debating for a minute whether or not they’ve broken the law, merely that they are not necessarily the monsters their convictions suggest they are. They have also spent a fair bit of time in prison getting to the trial which I would consider to be some punishment.
I do give them the benefit of the doubt, because it appears the judge has. He specifies that this is an exceptional case, and, considering the legal experience he surely has, I’m willing to take his word for it because I don’t know the full facts of what happened. It certainly seems unusual, the court has accepted that the girl looked 16, and I haven’t seen any hint of outrage from the family [although, I've only read a few articles on this incident, feel free to point me towards anything the girl's family have said].
I’d also not agree that the judge is incompetent or a paedophile. I simply think he’s someone who believes in rehabilitation, and looks for the best in people. This same judge broke down crying and had to leave the court before sentencing when a mother read a tribute to her daughter who had been killed.
Judge Julian Hall may well be soft, [In case 1, I would suggest so, although he was nowhere near as lenient as it has been reported], but I don’t think being optimistic about people makes him a paedophile or a bad judge.
Andrew Dalgleish,
I don’t feel she manipulated them as such, but I do think you nailed it yourself.
‘However, with a 10 year old girl it is quite apparent that at the very least he just didn’t care’
I would agree with this entirely. I think he just didn’t consider what he was doing properly. As I said earlier, the judge stated that this was an exceptional case and the court accepted that she looked 16. Personally, I’d like to think I’d ask a few more questions before having sex with a near absolute stranger, and I feel the defendants should have enquired further. They were reckless, they didn’t make absolute sure and that’s why I feel they deserve to be punished.
I would also suggest that comparisons to yourself are pointless for two reasons.
1- Females hit puberty, on average, earlier than males [I think, my memory of sex education a few years ago has faded a bit :(, confirmation would be nice].
2- Again, the judge has stated this is an exceptional case, where the girl did not look, dress, act or arguably even think like a 10 year old.
You mention curiosity, but the the judge also states ’she is a sexually precocious child’, suggesting this was perhaps not her first sexual experience.
My take on the matter is that these men just took some easy sex with someone who looked old enough to legally give it, not at all considering the possible consequences of their actions.
They are criminals, because they broke the law. I don’t feel they’re monsters, slimeballs or deserve to spend the rest of their life in prison, but that they made a mistake which I’m sure they will learn from in the future.
PS. No need for the psychiatrist comment, I’m not here for personal arguments.
23:10 Tuesday 26 Jun 07
10
The two MEN, Keith Fenn and Darren Wright involved in this crime may not have been fully aware of the true age of the girl involved? Having said that there must have been some doubt in the minds of these two MEN?
But Judge Julian Hill certainly was aware of the age of the girl when he passed judgement on the accused!
In my opinion this say’s a lot more regarding the competence of the Judge compared to the guilt of the accused! I’m not suggesting Judge Julian Hill is a paedophile, but simply someone who is majorly removed from the real world and far from being suitable to be dealing with cases as serious as this one!
Sadly this seems to be the case with a number of Judges dishing out lenient sentences for serious crimes, it is long overdue that the fossils representing the justice system are put into Museums where they belong!
Paul.
00:21 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
11
Michael, we have very different views on what constitutes a monster. As for the comparison to myself when I was ten years old, I have no personal experiences of being a 10 y/o girl so I can only draw on what I have and the curiosity must be similar even if at different ages. Anyway, she was 10. Nobody should be putting ANY responsibility on her for a sexual encounter. I still think the sentence was lenient even if she had been 15 years and 11 months. 24 is way too mature for such grave error of judgment, I could see your argument perhaps weighing more if he was only 16 himself.
00:41 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
12
“Anyway, she was 10. Nobody should be putting ANY responsibility on her for a sexual encounter.”
At what point does she have to take responsibility then? Does she automatically gain sexual maturity at 16? If she went out [aged 10] and sexually assaulted a 9 year old, would she be completely innocent on the basis she was so young and can’t have known what she was doing? And if she did the same age 15, would the same argument stand because she was under 16?
I don’t agree that because she was 10, her mind was innocent.
You say the curiosity must be similar between boys are girls of such an age, and, in general I would agree. But again the judge clearly says this is an exceptional case, that ’she is a very disturbed child’, so to make comparisons with a normal 10 year old would be wrong, as this does not appear to be the case.
For me, the parents must take a fair bit of blame in this, how have they allowed their child to develop in such a way? There does not appear to be any shock, anger, surprise or even disappointment from them on this case. That say a lot to me.
Also, Claire, I didn’t notice this quote earlier.
‘[16] is the age the law has decided one can make informed choices about sex. If you’re straight, that is.’
I did a bit of research, and the law was changed a few years ago so 16 is the age of consent homosexual activities too.
Wikipedia article.
10:09 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
13
It is a theory of mine that undiagnosed early onset senile dementia is a lot more common than people think. That is why it is undiagnosed. When - as sadly is increasingly common - a judge takes leave of his senses there is very little anyone can do about it.
10:15 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
14
I find it interesting that mainly men commented on this. I am not saying anything other than from what I have read, it is clearly a woefully inaqequate sentance. The judge is deluded in some way. However, the main outcry is from men as they are surprised. As a woman, I know of many friends that were sexually abused as children and many who have gone on to be assaulted as adults. These things are all too common. Everywhere. This is the real sadness. And, when people go to prison, I doubt that it helps stop their behavious anyway. Most sex offenders re-offend. And these are very few resources for rehabilitation either. We need to look at society and at what we can do to stop this kind of thing happening in the first place.
12:09 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
15
@VW - a huge problem I have with this judge and his sentence is that others who are sexually assaulted may feel it is not worth the pain of a trial or even reporting them.
We need hard sentences.
12:12 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
16
There seems to be some confusion about the law out there. There’s no need for it. Type “Sexual Offences Act 2003″ into google and take the OPSI link. Here’s a quick resume:
1. A child (male or female) under 13 years cannot consent to sexual activity. Consensual sexual intercourse with a 10 year old is rape. Mistake to age is not a defence.
2. At 13, mistake to age becomes a defence for consensual sex. Consent is irrelevant.
3. Sexual intercourse with a child over 16 and under 18 is an offence if the partner has a position of trust with respect to that child.
4. The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 years, so if the girl has sex with a 9 year old, yes she is guilty of sexual assault (she cannot commit rape because she has no penis).
As for the judge, I’m not going to comment. I’m just going to let my blood boil for a while!
14:10 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
17
Les,
Re: 1+4, I wasn’t necessarily looking for a legal ruling on such but was questioning Andrew’s statement “Anyway, she was 10. Nobody should be putting ANY responsibility on her for a sexual encounter.”
[Although re:4, I didn't realise the existence of an assault by penetration, which seems identical to the offence of rape, except without a penis, cheers for letting us know about the website, I didn't know about it]
Re: 2, could you point me in the direction of the section it mentions this [had a quick browse through, but don't have the time right now to read it fully]?
Re: 3, These men would surely not be considered to be in such a position, would they?
15:09 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
18
I would like to take a look at the right (dis?)-honourable judges hard drive. Just out of curiousity you understand!
Or maybe put the judge and the paedophile in a locked room with a hundred mothers for an hour. That thought, mind, might be as anachronistic as some of the judge’s.
15:51 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
19
Once again a Paedophile friendly Judge, not only did he disregard the law that says below a certain age it is Child Rape and as such they should get a serious sentence he clearly sided with and sympathised with these men who raped a child.
That law is there to project Children, we now hear that she was in a home and had no family to look after her.
The law must be used here to increase the sentence and remove this SICK Judge, if you look at the other cases he does not treat it as child rape, but more like a disagreement, buy them a bike and make it up.
In the case that made him cry, he could have give the driver 7 years for killing that woman, but he let him off with a small fine and banned a driver who was already banned.
Now he is saying to these men, “Sorry guys, I know she was asking for it but I have to pretend to do my job, will two months be ok?
When will this government or the home office start looking as these Judges who let their mates off?
Why are they not reviewed like other professions?
18:58 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
20
Les, many thanks for proving me right in the eyes of the law. She cannot be held liable for any sexual activities and I am still stunned that Michael appears to feel that she should have known better and should take some responsibility for being abused.
However, putting the legal aspect aside for a moment, the morality of what they did is absolutely disgusting. I feel that paedophiles should be locked up until we know that they will not re-offend and given the re-offending rate in this area that lock up period should be until death. This raises the point of who will pay £35000 per year to lock the beasts up and I feel that seeing as we could feed, clothe and educate 100 3rd world kids for this sum that we should invest in a £1 domestos injection for them instead. Harsh? Not really when you consider we cluster bomb middle eastern villages in the hope that one of the 100’s of dead inhabitants might have been supporting a political view that is different from our government’s. The world is a hard place and we should stop being so squeemish about hard sentences. They were just lucky they weren’t going into the underground wearing a padded jacket or they might have been accidently shot 7 times in the head. Criminals should get rights like appeals and family visits when they start offering these rights to their victims. There, you can now call me a right wing nutter and feel smug that you are the caring individual. I am a caring person, the difference is who we care about. Spend a night helping out a victim support unit and then start shouting about the rights of criminals.
19:52 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
21
Micheal, Section 9 is what you need to look at. The consent of a child under 16 to sexual activity is irrelevant. However, if the child is over 13, and the defendant can show that he reasonably believed the child to be over 16, his beleive in the child’s consent is relevant. Section 17 deals with abuse of a position of trust, and i included it for completeness. In effect, the law deals with sex in 4 age groups, under 13, under 16, under 18 and over 18. No, these men were not in that position.
Andrew, you are absolutely right; she cannot be held liable, in any way, for her rapists actions; even if she encourages him she cannot be found guilty of incitement. (That’s called the “Tyrell exemption”) I also agree with you that the actions of these men are absolutely disgusting. I don’t think these men have any morals at all. Also, I understand your outrage, and agree the £35,000 could be better spent. But I’m not sure that I agree, or at least that I would admit to agreeing, with your proposed punishment scheme. Colin’s idea has some merit, though.
Mark, Root and Brad have suggested the judge is incompetent. If the press reports are accurate, I’m inclined to agree. Consider the reports:
First of all, the mistake to age and the girl’s consent are not relevant to the charge or admissable as a defence. Why was the defence allowed to make so much of them? Did the judge direct the jury to disregard this stuff?
The judge allegedly pointed out that the girl was wearing a frilly bra and a thong. Lots of Bras are frilly, and girls wear thongs to ensure the “wedgie” is small (I’m told), so there’s nothing unusual or provocative in that. Why did he single her underwear out? Was she not wearing anything else that day?
He goes on to describe wearing a strappy top and jeans as “dressing provocatively”. I guess Ann Summers is barking up the wrong tree, then!
The girl was in care so she is defined as a child in need. When he describes her as “needy” he is technically accurate. But “sexually precocious” may be slander, or an inappropriate disclosure, and linking in “disturbed” may be misleading. Being disturbed may be the result, not the cause of the assault.
I’m most worried that he is alleged to have said, “She would have been wearing a lot of make up because she liked to dress provocatively”. That sounds like an assumption, not a fact.
Of course, the reporting may have been biased, but I’m not convinced that the trial was properly conducted.
21:58 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
22
Andrew,
I think I made it quite clear I was seeking your personal opinion rather than a legal one. Besides, Les actually proved you wrong in that a girl of 10 can in fact be held responsible for sexual activities.
The suggestions that Judge Julian Hall is a paedophile are absolute madness, if a judge is ‘lenient’ on a killer or thief is he one? If he were truly a paedophile then surely he would impose tough sentences on these criminals in order to create the illusion he was completely against such behaviour, protecting himself from such accusations. Why would he care about protecting a couple of small time people who may or may not be evil?
22:03 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
23
Les, thanks for the guidance, can see what you mean now.
I’ve interpreted it differently to you, however.
S.9(c)(i)states that the defendant has not even commit an offence if he believes the 13+ year old to be 16+, in that he cannot even be found guilty.
I would suggest that in S.9(c)(ii), if a person makes sexual contact with a child younger than 13, he will be found guilty regardless.
I believe that he would still be able to argue a mistake of fact, but that would only be a partial defence rather than the complete defence available to the accused in S.9(c)(i).
22:16 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
24
Micheal, You’re right. My initial post uses the original “explanatory note” provided with the act. The link is at the bottom of the content’s page, but the explanatory note has changed in line with case law etc. I don’t think you’ve interpreted it differently, just described it differently. Two sides to the same coin, so to speak. Be careful of the word “reasonably”. The defendant must show that his belief is reasonable in S9(c)(i).
with regard to S9(c)(ii), as in this case, the defence case was in mistake to age, but the judge should direct the jury to disregard that argument. I think the term is “strict liability”. If you do it, you’re guilty. There’s no defence. However, the judge might take mistake to fact into account in sentencing, depending on guidelines.
It might be worth clearing up the argument about a 10 year old’s liability for their sexual activities. If the partner is an adult, the child incurs no liability. If the partner is a child under 10, the 10 year old is liable. If the partner is 10-17 section 13 of the act applies. However, the CPS are extremely unlikely to prosecute.
I don’t believe the judge is a paedophile but… The main purpose of S5 to 29 (that’s quite a lot) is to deter people from committing offences against children. I don’t think that’s happened here. If you were a paedophile looking to reduce risk to yourself, where would you go? (That’s rhetorical, BTW)
23:19 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
25
Les,
“the defence case was in mistake to age” - Is mistake of age a recognised separate defence to mistake of fact? I would assume they’re the same, only they’ve actually mentioned the fact which was mistaken.
You are correct in that statutory rape is a strict liability offence - the mens rea is not required for a guilty verdict.
I think the judge has considered such in his sentencing [and in my opinion rightly so] though.
The act states that the maximum sentence is 14 years.
Considering the mistake of fact, the apparant enouragement of the girl and the fact that no force [be it mental or physical] appears to have been used, the sentence of 2 years is, for me, about right.
Re: A 10 year old’s liability, I realise such. I was just making an extreme point to argue against Andrew’s claim that a 10 year old cannot be liable for any sexual action.
23:50 Wednesday 27 Jun 07
26
Micheal,
Semantics. It is for the prosecution to prove the S9 offence. But, if a victim is over 13 but under 16, the burden of proof that the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was 16 or over (Mistake to age) rests with the defendant. My use of the term “mistake to fact” is a typo.
The maximum sentence for rape of a 13 year old (S5) is life. If the CPS did not believe they could secure a conviction for rape of a 13 year old, they would prosecute for sexual activity with a child (S9) which carries a maximum 14 year sentence.
There’s been a lot of comment in the press recently about “lenient sentencing” and judges claim that the leniency is due to Home-Office guidelines, which have been amended, allegedly, to relieve prison overcrowding. Lenient sentencing reduces public confidence in the judicial system.
I have seen nothing in the press reports that indicates the girl encouraged her attackers. Wearing a frilly bra, or a thong as undergarments, or a “strappy top” and jeans does not constitute encouragement. That she looked or behaved older than she was does not constitute encouragement. Her willingness to comply with the wishes of two much older adults does not constitute encouragement.
If she had deliberately instigated the sexual acts, that would be encouragement. There’s no indication of that, and if that had been the case, her choice of clothing would have been of no interest to the judge. The judge is reported to have said “She WOULD HAVE been wearing a lot of make up because she liked to dress provocatively”. That sounds like assumption, not fact.
I think most of the outrage expressed by children’s charities is due to the judge’s comments in sentencing that seem to paint a picture of the girl as a bit of a strumpet, and his apparent acceptance that her attackers could be encouraged by that. To describe wearing a strappy top and jeans as “dressing provocatively” is stretching a point.
06:45 Thursday 28 Jun 07
27
sorry peeps.
The term “Rape of a 13 year old” in my previous post should read “Rape of a child under 13″.
I’m not worth a thing before breakfast.
07:44 Thursday 28 Jun 07
28
Les,
Sorry, got caught up in looking at s9 and forgot he was charged with s5.
Re: lenient sentencing, I would probably agree, more space in prisons and these people would likely have received harsher sentences. But is it fair for so many people to call this judge a paedophile when he is in fact only following the policy set out by the home office?
It was wrong of me to assume she encouraged the men, is there any way the full facts of the case will be made available to the public?
To return to some of your earlier points, I would agree that the word needy is techically accurate, but could it also suggest that she craved attention, and her behaviour helped satisfy this desire?
You also put forward that he may have slandered the young girl and the trial was not conducted properly. I suppose we’ll see how true this is soon, as the Attorney General is looking into it.
If A) He decides against any sort of appeal or
B) Upon appeal, the same conclusion is reached
Will people accept that perhaps it was the correct decision, or just add the A-G/Appeal judges to their list of convicted paedophiles [Not aimed at you, but rather those who have done so previously]?
Re: Children’s charities, I can understand their outrage, they dedicate large portions of their life to protection against such crimes, and must see a lot of defendants playing the ignorance card re: age.
My real complaint is with the sensationalist media, who are making these men out to be far more evil than they are. Even if you feel the sentencing was lenient, do you personally consider these men to be the monsters they’re portrayed as in the media?
08:48 Thursday 28 Jun 07
29
Micheal:
No, it is not fair to call the judge a paedophile. No, the full fact will not be available, because the victim cannot be identified. Otherwise, I believe the transcript of the trial is probably available.
The context of the judge’s use of the word “needy” does suggest that she craved attention and does suggest that led to her behaviour. The question is whether that is accurate. I’ve suggested that the judge may have assumed some things about the child, but it is just as likely that he is quoting a social services report to the court. An examination of the transcript may determine which. Equally, it may show whether the trial was properly conducted;- was the jury directed to disregard evidence about age and consent?
There will always be someone who cannot accept the court’s decision and wants to shout about it. I would defend their right to do so because it is the foundation of democracy.
“Sex offences against children” is an emotive issue and people do tend to exercise their right to express their views. The media will do so in a sensationalist manner because it sells.
My personal view of these men? Strictly speaking, a paedophile preys on pre-pubescent children, and this girl was evidently not pre-pubescent. Even if the girl was actually 16, the sequence of events doesn’t come up to the highest standards of public decency. And a sexually percocious 16 year old would be quite capable of taking her own clothes off.
We only have the press reports to go on, but the judge’s view doesn’t add up. In my view, these men wanted sex, she was available and attractive to them, and they didn’t care how old she was, so long as she had all the right bits. I think their offences, and the way they went about them was reprehensible.
Can I interest you in the UK Threat Analysis (google it) published by SOCA? Sexual offences against children is rated as one of the seven greatest threats to our society. Terrorism is not. If the press reports are accurate, I think there is a genuine case for much stiffer sentences. We must not allow sexual activity with children to be seen as “Normal”.
10:23 Thursday 28 Jun 07
30
Sorry Micheal, I meant forgot to say this:
You wrote, “It was wrong of me to assume she encouraged…”
In your defence, that is the effect of the way the press has reported the judge’s comments. It is quite possible that someone actually intended you to make that assumption. Maybe the press, maybe the judge.
10:36 Thursday 28 Jun 07
31
The 06/07 36 page .pdf report? I’ll have a look through it when I get a chance, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
‘I think there is a genuine case for much stiffer sentences. We must not allow sexual activity with children to be seen as “Normal”.’
I agree completely, but as you mentioned earlier, the prison crowding would need to be sorted first.
For me, the solution is relatively simple.
Drop the standards of prisons, remove luxuries and give people a mattress, toilet and sink in their cell, with 3 basic meals a day.
There’s no doubt in my mind that this would
A) Deter people from committing crimes because prison would become much more of a punishment [I do wonder if some commit crimes on the basis it offers a better quality of life than they were previously experiencing].
B) Significantly lower the cost of maintaining prisons, allowing the money to be spent on things such as new prisons [If they were still needed].
Unfortunately it would no doubt be a breach on their legal human rights [Which perhaps needs to be revised with the humans who don't behave like humans in mind].
Anyway, I’m drifting from the original topic and I’m not sure there’s much more I can say on the matter. Enjoyed the discussion though. :)
15:12 Thursday 28 Jun 07
32
Yes, I think we have reached the end of this one and many thanks for providing me with a more balanced view. I can act too instinctively at times and it can take people like you two (Les and Michael) to show that sometimes a compromise is better than winning an argument because you get some of the benefits of both extremes. I must admit I have enjoyed the discussion too and Michael, I think your proposals for prisons are absolutely spot on. I know that my views are on the extreme side and probably not for the overall good which is why I don’t go in for being politically actve. I think I would be worse than Stalin although possibly not as bad as George Bush! The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that.
Oh, and I STILL wouldn’t leave my kids with the judge. I know that you can get smoke without fire and this is quite probably the case here but some instincts should never be ignored.
19:15 Thursday 28 Jun 07
33
Thanks for the kind words, Andrew.
Actually, Michael, I don’t think your proposals do breach human rights. Type “Human Rights Act 1998″ into google and follow the OPSI link.
22:32 Thursday 28 Jun 07
34
**What I am about to say may disturb some of you, and I am sorry if it does.**
I agree that what these two men did was wrong. It is sick to have any sexual contact with a minor, especially one as young as 10 years old. These two men should do many years in prison AND they should be registered as sex offenders. This judge should lose his job.
NOW, on the otherhand, I WILL say this in regards to this little girl. My next door neighbor is a violent woman, and she has had 5 children, all fathered by different men, and each one of her children are overly sexual, and trouble-making, just as she is. She herself has openly admitted that she has WILLFULLY been having sexual intercourse since SHE WAS 9 years old!
Anyway, her son, who is 17 now, actually penetrated one of his younger sisters with a toy, and I have seen him masturbate many times in their front yard between the ages of 2 and 15. One of the other daughters is very sexual, at the age of 10, she wore skanky make-up and always grabbed her crotch, and tried to play with her classmates “special parts” a lot. She was expelled from her elementary school.
One time years ago, I was over visiting, and the grandmother told me that she caught this 10 year old girl stark naked in her room, laying on her back with her legs spread apart and fingering herself. This is the same girl that flirts with boys, grabs herself and her classmates, wear too much make-up.. etc…
This young girl was also caught red-handed pushing sticks up their pet Chihuahua’s anus!!
Young children CAN be sexually aroused and they DO feel pleasure when their clitoris of shaft is touched. Many mothers can tell you that during diaper changes, or during warm baths, their baby boys have erections. Many young girls are found “playing with themselves,” fingering themselves and whatnot.
Sometimes, the minds of young children is NOT INNOCENT. I am not justifying what these men did, what they did was digusting and they are getting off way too easy. BUT this young girl is quite possibly deranged and should be institutionalized. To her, maybe she was not sexually abused, but rather sexually satisfied. She needs help. It is quite possible that her parents are just as sick as she is.
Yes, by law she is a victim, but she is not some sweet, innocent little child. This should not have happened to her, and if these “men” were REAL men, then they would have realized that this girl was off her rocker and walked away.
It is not like these men chased down a sweet little girl, kidnapped her, and forced her while she fought and cried. True, at that age, even if this victim gave consent, it is still statutory rape.
Now, what can be done about this judge?
22:42 Thursday 28 Jun 07
35
Hi Nicole,
You appear to have some unusual neighbours. In this country, if you reported these matters to Social Services the children might well be taken into care.
I guess you’re not in this country and don’t know that the victim in this case does not have parents and has been in care since she was 4 years old. So, if the parents are to blame, it’s the state at fault in this case.
Whether this girl was “innocent” or an active player in her own statutory rape has not been proven, only alleged by the defendants. Whereas you say your next door neighbour’s little girl wears too much make up, the judge in this case said “She would have been wearing a lot of make up because she liked to dress provocatively”, sounds like an assumption based on an opinion, not a fact.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, these men should have walked away. It is every adult’s responsibility to ensure that they do not harm, or take advantage of, children (or mentally ill people).
What can be done about this judge? Well, this case damages public confidence in the judicial system so, if the press is right and he is incompetent or worse, he could face a charge of “misconduct in public office”. I doubt that will happen, but if he isn’t vindicated when the Attorney General reviews this sentence, I doubt he’ll ever be invited to try a child sex offence again.
07:35 Friday 29 Jun 07
36
I must say I find Nicole’s account and attitude towards her neighbours to be reprehensible. If the facts as stated are true then the neighbours children have clearly been the victims of abuse themselves. If they were in turn to make themselves available to adults that does not excuse or justify or in any way diminish the moral and legal failure by the adult. That is the purpose of Statutory rape provisions. It is wrong regardless.
10:00 Friday 29 Jun 07
37
OT the wishy washy admission of irrelevant material and argument is one of the early signs of a fair trial going off the rails.
10:35 Friday 29 Jun 07
38
“Hi Nicole,
You appear to have some unusual neighbours. In this country, if you reported these matters to Social Services the children might well be taken into care.
I guess you’re not in this country and don’t know that the victim in this case does not have parents and has been in care since she was 4 years old. So, if the parents are to blame, it’s the state at fault in this case.”
Yes, Les, you are right. And for the record, I, and many others have reported some instances of disturbing behavior from this residence. The over sexed young girl is actually institutionalized right now as we speak. I’m sorry, I should have included that in my original comment. I didn’t realize that I appeared as just some onlooker that accepted this behaviour.
19:03 Friday 29 Jun 07
39
“I must say I find Nicole’s account and attitude towards her neighbours to be reprehensible. If the facts as stated are true then the neighbours children have clearly been the victims of abuse themselves…”
Root, sorry you feel that way about my “attitude.” I have grown up next door to this dysfuncional family. The parents are a very nice couple that could not concieve. They adopted a 3 year old wild-child because her biological father could not control her. This wild-child’s biological mother was in a womens detention center for attempted murder and armed robbery. This couple raised this insane child with lots of love and support. This young girl has poisoned neighborhood cats, set fires to bushes, egged peoples’ homes, prank called everyone in the neighborhood at all hours of the evening, vandalized peoples’ cars, had no friends in school, and was always displaying inappropriate sexual behaviour, even at such a young age, she was always acting very sexually intrested with men that were her father’s age. She has been sexually active since she was 9. She tried to always dress in high heels and skanky make-up.
She had 5 children. Every single one of these children has a different father. And every single one of her children is as demented as her. Her parents have done everything they could for her and her children. She was never abused. She is a bad seed and her children unfortunatly inhereted her psychosis. Especially the one that is institutionalized.
All I am trying to say is, just because this particular girl was only 10 years old does not mean that she was some sweet, innocent little lamb. She may have enticed these men. I am not trying to justify the actions of these men, they should be hung in my opinion, but this girl being protrayed as a child victim just kind of makes me think of my neighbor, and she is far from a victim.
I think that this judge should lose his job. I think that these men should do at least 10 years in prison and they should be registered as sex offenders upon release. I think that this young girl should be evaluated and based on their findings, maybe medicated and under psychiatric care indefinetly.
19:19 Friday 29 Jun 07
40
Hey Nicole, The reason I guessed you’re not in this country (UK) is because you say neighbor, I say neighbour, and you say elementary school while I say primary school. I guess you say welfare services when I say social services. Whatever, they seem to respond in the same way.
To describe someone as “bad seed” will have your average humanist psychologist looking for an opportunity to motivate you to think differently (That’s a weak joke for humanist psychologists).
Root is right. The account of your neighbors (sic) shows that you’ve had a lot to put up with - and so have that woman’s kids. If you had not reported this situation, an accusation of failing to do your civic duty would not be wide of the mark. I’m glad you cleared that up for us; we stiff-assed Brits like to know who we’re dealing with!
I think Root should be a carpenter, ‘cos he hit the nail on the head twice more. We have a legal duty not to harm children and a moral duty to protect them from harm from others. And yes, allowing irrelevant evidence is an indication of a trial gone bad. (It’s not off topic, that’s the whole point - the judge is being accused of botching it.)
20:03 Friday 29 Jun 07
41
I adore you stiffed-assed Brits!
20:13 Friday 29 Jun 07
42
Steady on with the stiff assed. But we do like to be precise. Particularly in that diminishing minority that had the good fortune to receive any kind of edumacation.
@Les: Thanks for your comments. :)
21:28 Friday 29 Jun 07
43
And further OT the courts are plagued by experts of which the worst category by far are social services employees who are panundrums of largely unqualified theorising which regrettably the judge is frequently obliged to follow. These same creatures figure prominently in all the controversial care and adoption proceedings. I would put them all out of business.
22:09 Friday 29 Jun 07
44
Root: You wrote, “Steady on with the stiff assed. But we do like to be precise”. Is that irony? Like, “I doubt he’ll ever be invited to try a child sex offence again”?
Again, you’re not OT. what if the judge’s comments are quotes from a social services report. But some of my friends are social workers and, well, you may be right;-/
Nicole: Of course you do! It’s the accent, don’t y’know.
23:26 Friday 29 Jun 07
45
When I say the courts are plagued by experts I am quoting a Lord Justice of Appeal from the Family Division in an unprecedented interview in the Times. He was clearly referring to Social Reports. I have forgotten his name. Les you may have seen it.
11:29 Saturday 30 Jun 07
46
Wake up people unconsented sex is rape, anyone under 26 is still not fully grown, oh and bill c. oral sex is sex and it can cause spread of diseases and now the std’s have boldly increased since you highly indignate moment.
09:46 Thursday 12 Jul 07
47
Wake up people unconsented sex is rape, anyone under 26 is still not fully grown, oh and bill c. oral sex is sex and it can cause spread of diseases and now the std’s have boldly increased since you highly publicised moment.
09:47 Thursday 12 Jul 07
48
Amen Eve,
No one here ever said that unconsented sex was not rape.
Everyone here agrees that the girl was raped.
If she consented or not, it is still rape and everyone agrees.
Maybe you were seeing things, or mis-understood a post…
23:25 Saturday 14 Jul 07
49
I feel for the younge girl in this case, We feared a similar result, as we to were in court with Judge Julian Hall residing but our outcome was much more positive and we feel even though he may have done wrong, he today went some way to vindicate himself and our justice system. He sentanced a registered paedophile to 6 months for indsent assult on a 11 year old boy and 9 months for breacking his bonds added an indeterminate sentance so David Cullen will have to prove he will no longer hurt another child before he is releised. Judge Julian hall Said life. even if he is ever released he will stay on the sex offenders for life and is bound never to have any contact with any child under the age of 16 for life even if they are in the presence of a parent.
My Heart goes out to all victims of abuse and I pray for peace in all there hearts and there families.
X
22:43 Monday 30 Jul 07
50
that should be 6 years not 6 months
22:44 Monday 30 Jul 07
51
This conversation appears to have petered out some months ago.. unless there is another page I have missed. I haven’t read it all but I’ve seen a lot..
I’d just like to add that I myself was sexually abused by a paedophile, so this is from the horses mouth. I have experienced the impacts of sexual abuse from a very personal perspective. The abuse I suffered happened for 4 years while I was growing up. The perpetrator actually started grooming me at the age of 11 and it went on from the ages of 12- 16.
I know now that I had no concept of sex whatsoever at the age of 12.. it was just a word I had heard mentioned from time to time. I had no idea of the magnitude, effect or nature of what was involved.
It was only really at the age of 16 that I started to realise that something wasn’t right and I was 17 before I could recognise the concept ‘I had been abused’ and even then I blamed myself for a further 5/6 years. I have only begun to stop blaming myself after 4 and a half years of therapy; and the therapy is ongoing.
How anyone can argue or assume for one second that a girl of age 10 might have to take the slightest bit of responsibility for a sexual act is not only ignorant but just plain insane. Even if their body has started to develop their mind hasn’t.
I find it bizarre that Michael wanted to argue that a 10 year old take responsibility in any situation. In my experience a minor can never take responsibility, as they do not have the mental capacity until really the age of 17 or 18; and the effects of rape and abuse are catastrophic in later life.
Not only is the victim very seriously damaged psychologically, usually to some extent for life, they are also physically damaged because the trauma of abuse affects the make-up of the brain and causes further mental health issues.
Child rape and child sexual abuse are huge issues in our society today and its about time people woke up and truly understood the impact of these horrific crimes on the victims.
I don’t feel the mental and emotional damage to the victims is understood nearly enough.
How is 2 or 3 years in prison a punishment for someone who has sentenced their victim to a lifetime of mental illness?
We should concentrate on helping the victims who are many and in great need, not finding long- winded arguments to excuse the perpetrators.
02:34 Wednesday 9 Jan 08
52
Hello Anon,
I have an email alert on this discussion so, although it petered out months ago, I read your post and decided I wanted to applaud it.
It is incomprehensible to me also that anyone can believe the 10 year old child is in any way responsible for her own rape.
I also agree that very few people understand the serious psychological damage caused by sexual abuse. I have never been abused and have no concept of the suffering it causes. I can only assume from the 4 and 1/2 years of therepy that it must be very serious indeed.
I agree that we should do all we can to help the victims of these terrible crimes, and I recognise that real justice is important in this regard. The Attorney General did appeal this case and the sentences were stiffened.
I do think, though, that we should be concentrating on preventing such crimes in the first place. Since the children don’t have the mental capacity to understand, that means the adults with a duty of care towards those children have to protect them. I think what you have written here will go a long way to motivate those adults.
19:15 Wednesday 9 Jan 08
53
It is permissable to rape a sixteen year old or older or if the perpetrators decide any bitch is old enough to screw-Maybe the old bugger thought he would get his jollies too?
19:49 Wednesday 12 Mar 08
54
ANON - I applaud you - I too spent several years as a young girl being abused at the hands of a family member - also grooming me over time - until i was completely under his control. I was neither promiscuous nor the type of girl who wore ‘provocative clothing. But lets think about this - we now appear to be reverting backwards - we are now covering up our little girls - no more mini skirts, or bright coloured make up or little sunmmer tops - all because of these sick twisted control freaks who have weird issues and enjoy controling and degrading those smaller and weaker than them. As a mother myself of an 11yr old girl - I am much more suspicious - and do not allow her to leave the house in a short skirt - so am i preventing her from being a girl?, am I giving her a complex? making her paranoid that every man is a potential rapist ?- so thanks to this judge the general consensus amongs the sick element of our society will be that if a little girl is dressed provocativley this makes it ok take advavtage and to engage in sexual activity. If the public dont stand up as a collective, and campaign HARD to change the punishments / sentencing of these peodophilles and rapists then we will continue to live in a society whereby this will continue to happen, these sick men AND women who take advantage of our children will be given free reign to continue to abuse and damage our children. NO MATTER HOW ‘PROVOCATIVE’ OUR LITTLE GIRLS DRESS, NO MATTER HOW THEY WALK, TALK AND ‘COME ACROSS’ DOES NOT GIVE ANY ADULT THE RIGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND MANIPULATE A LITTLE CHILD!!!!!!!!! BUT shock horror a grown MAN (judge hall) decided that strappy top and jeans was ‘teasing’ if you will - and as she was a ‘care kid’ this made her needy !!!!!!!!!!! erm well yeah!!!!! if she was in care of course she was bloody needy”!!!!! but to use this as an excuse for an adult having sex with her is outragous!!!!! And I can only hope and pray that ‘fate/karma’ doesnt come back to haunt Mr Hall!! But I reckon his opinion would be VERY different if it had happened to a child in his own family! I can understand why many of the public feel that maybe Mr Hall has ‘tendencies’ of his own, as he not only allowed one case but more to walk out of his court room blaming NOT the adults responsible for destroying a childs life but THE CHILD!!!!
Gone are the days when the public would take a stand! And why?? because we have no faith in our judicial systems to ‘do right’ by the public the it serves! We no longer live in a democracy (for the people - of the people and by the people) we are dictated to by these people of so called authority ie, simpleton judges who have absolutley NO REAL IDEA of the REAL world - living like kings in their own little kingdsoms - oblivious to the reality of the suffering of abused children across the country - in fact across the world!!!! Until this changes - the only protection for our children comes AFTER they have suffered. The amazing charities out there (eg KIDSCAPE, NSPCC, VOICES FROM CARE, AND MANY MORE)are doing wonderful work in the area of sexual abuse and I take my at off to them!! until the government and judicial system adopts the same culture of protecting our most precious assests - our children, then things will never change. !!!!!!!
12:23 Saturday 22 Mar 08
55
It is clear to me that this Judge Julian Hall is not fit for his post and should be removed.
15:30 Saturday 22 Mar 08
56
And here the paedophile lover goes again
At what point does he let someone off who then repeats their offence and damages another life. Once would be too many.
That sad little man needs sacking.
17:03 Saturday 22 Mar 08
57
Mark, John and Alethea. I agree. If this jusge persistently fails to apply sentencing guidelines to the child sex offences that come before him, he will ruin public confidence in the judiciary.
Might I suggest you express your support to Kidscape, and to The Rt Hon Mike Penning MP, who both seem to be very concerned about the judge. You could also express your disapproval to the Justice minister, his boss.
There’s a new Act of Parliament called The Serious Crime Act 2007. Part 2 of the act deals with encouraging and assisting crime. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the first person charged with “Encouraging crime by failing to take reasonable steps to carry out a duty” was a judge?
Alethea, I know this is not what you want to hear but, if you stop your little girl going out of the house in a mini skirt, she’ll just change her clothes at her friend’s house. You’ll simply alienate her by being restrictive. It is far better to teach her the apropriate way to respond to sexual advances, (and why), and try to engage her with some of those groups that provide things for kids to do like Guides etc.
18:02 Sunday 23 Mar 08
58
Julian Hall - I think, this man is not only mad, he is simply perverse. He should be forced to feel what the girl felt: one should stuff his mouth with his peruke and rape him a nice huge dildo. I’d like to know how he would think afterwards.
22:42 Monday 9 Jun 08
59
@Michael
Your an idiot, and any man who cant distinguish between a girl of 10 and 16 are also idiots along with this pillock Judge Hall.
16:56 Wednesday 15 Oct 08
60
This Julian Hall need to be off the bench and quick smart.. Having recently passed A Level in Criminology I find it really hard to understand how this FOOL can be written about in national papers for the WRONG way he is punishing offender’s (or not punishing) and still be allowed to keep his job. The whole world is having difficulty trying to maintain public order, respect and enforce the law, yet the punishments do NOT fit the crime these Horrible offenders are continuing to commit. I’m not saying bring back the old style of punishment but at least these monsters paid for the crimes they committed. If anyone knows how to get this twit off the bench let me know. Thanks.
00:11 Tuesday 4 Nov 08