Rapist not imprisoned

Did he actually rape her, i.e. force her or was it "consensual" with someone too young actually to give consent? I haven't seen anything about this so will have to consult today's newspapers – not yet bought – for further information as this all sounds a bit odd.

It was consensual, but when a child is under age - and 13 is definitely under age, it is rape.

But the judge gave him a non-custodial sentence because he had gone to a strict school and did not know about ages of consent.

The main point is that I have always understood that ignorance of the law was not a valid defence so the judge should not have taken this into account when sentencing.

The judge agreed that he was an exceptionally immature 18 year old, lacking in knowledge and misinformed by those who educated him, and also living in closeted crcumstances, therefore there was room for manouevre in not imposing an immediate prison sentence. Usually, a 4 year age difference, when one young person is over the age of consent and the other is under, is used as a guideline where it has been consensual, but it was accepted that this could be relaxed in view of the circumstances. He will be supervised by probation and has a 9 month suspended prison sentence that could be activated if he does not comply with a treatment programme to address the offence.

Surely if he had been to a strict Islamic school, he must have known that sex outside marriage was not allowed. Or is it in Islam?

I think that sentancing should not only be about ther perpetrator but also about the message it gives to others. For that reason this worries me.

I agree Movedalot and I also worry about the message it gives to the girl. She may have thought it was consensual sex but she was 13 for goodness sake! The defence said that he had been taught that 'women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground'. Well, congratulations to this judge who has now confirmed that view and in fact has confirmed that not only women, but also children are 'no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground'. I am incensed by this judgement.

It looks like this 18 year old has been interviewed and assessed by several professionals, including psychologists and probation officers who specialise in sex offender work. The judge will have been persuaded by their assessments and recommendations, knowing the starting point is imposition of a prison sentence. Whatever was in the assessments has led him to suspend the custodial element of the sentence. I agree no 13 year old can give informed consent - that's why he's been prosecuted. He says he didn't know it was illegal till he told a relative further down the line. He didn't deny it. It came to light because she told friends. Was he that naive that he divulged what he'd done, not expecting a legal reaction? He would know that sex outside marriage is not condoned in Islam, but it isn't illegal. The papers don't tell us enough.

I can't believe that he didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a minor. He may have been taught in an Islamic school (where incidentally he would have been taught that sex outside of marriage is forbidden), but surely in all his 18 years has he never read a newspaper or seen or heard a TV or radio report about some pervert who had sex with someone under 16 and was imprisoned for it?

Several of you ask " surely they are taught that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage"
From what we have read about what went on in Rotherham and the trail now in Oxford, it seems to me that it is ok as long as the girls are white.

I can't comment on the case, but I think it's worth pointing out that a large section of society does not think sex outside of marriage is wrong, and it is very easy to 'pick this up' during one's formative years, so possibly whatever has been taught elsewhere is disregarded.

Whenim is right. All we have to go on is a report which provides a few details of the case. We haven't heard the evidence, and more importantly, we don't have access to the detailed reports which will have been made by probation and / or medical professionals. It's possible that is he not UK born and has little or no education, or that he has learning difficulties. Who knows. On the face of it the sentence is extremely lenient but without access to all the facts I think it's difficult to take a view.

The reports state that he was educated at an Islamic school in the UK which is presumably where he was taught that women are of no more worth than a lollipop. I hope the school will be investigated.

I am concerned about the effect of all this on the girl. The judge appears to have accepted that this man is 'immature' and 'lacking assertiveness' and his defence that he was 'tempted' by the girl. So he becomes a victim in need of support whereas the girl will now be left with this negative message about her own sexuality and no automatic follow up or support. I sometimes wonder whether attitudes to women have changed at all in the last 50 years.

nightowl the girl will be offered support and counselling via the probation victim support worker, who will keep in touch with the family throughout the sentence. If more substantial counselling is needed, probation can liaise with the local psychology service via the multi-agency public protection panel.

Because this has been a high profile case, the panel will be on the alert about the girl's wellbeing due to media attention and unhelpful analysis of her behaviour.

There is usually more to these cases than meets the eye or is made public. But it is hard to see how he could not have known that it was illegal - but it is also important that sentencing both takes all the mitigating factors into acount, but sends a deterrent message, which this sentence will not do.

However, the difficulties of making judgements about these things when faced with a combination of girls looing older than they are and encouraged from all sides to behave in a sexually provocative manner, combined with teenage boys at their most lusty - a volatile combination that can lead to many misunderstandings, with sad consequences.

The quoted crime seems to be sex with a minor rather than rape as the girl was a willing partner - or perhaps others might put me right about that.

Allegedly he was imbued with an attitude at his Islamic school that women are as worthless as a discarded lolly. I think it is totally abhorrent that these sort of beliefs are fostered by SOME of the Muslim community as clearly they are importing their medieval beliefs to the UK. If he has been schooled over here he should be well aware of the age of consent and I'm not sure I buy into the belief that he didn't know.

when that is reassuring and I accept that you know what you are talking about. I'm sure you're right that because this was a high profile case the panel will be particularly alert to the girl 's wellbeing. It's just that in my experience I know that the victim is often overlooked and I have seen a lot of damage caused to young girls at a crucial time in their development.

nightowl you're so right, and it's interesting to note that, whenever probation has to make cuts, senior managers target small teams like victim liaison, saying that their work should be absorbed by larger teams. There is always a fight to keep them - asking a probation officer to work with the offender and support their victim and family is nonsense, despite the best intentions of the PO to represent the victim perspective, but even experienced chief officers who chair protection panels conveniently forget the victim of the offence when money is getting scarce. The work of victim liaison staff might be under-resourced, but they do a vital job.

It seems to me his religious background made him do it, and his religious background enabled him to avoid prison.

Something wrong here!

Something is very wrong I have an x-Bolivian-son-in-law that it does not seem to matter what sex offensives he commits he seems to get away with it.
I have reported him for Rape twice first time related to when my daughter was still with him so I didn't report it until after they split because of the trouble it might have caused for the family and fear of never seeing my daughter or grandchildren again.
The second time was just three months after I got the residence order for the children and he got staying access. I had the medical, gave the video evidence but he never got prosecuted because he claimed concentual his word against mine.
Since then he has gone on to sexually interfere with both his daughters. The oldest one told me in 2010 that her dad baths her differently to me and sticks his fingers up her bottom but she would not say anthing to a Police Officer so he did not get charged. The second randgdaughter has told a number of people about him sticking his fingers down there and making her sore including a teaching assistant, who called the Police in took a statement but didn't prosecute. Two Social Workers have been told and Police called back to another incident.
Professionals mucked Video questioning up by asking leading questions still not prosecuted.

This person was charged with Rape and so I do not understand how he got off by stating he did not know it was illegal to have sex with an under 16 year old.

I fully agree with *Flickertyb that ignorance of the law was not a valid defence in any court of law.

And what ever your religon, you should follow and be aware of the Law of what ever Land you have chosen to live in.

The worse thing is that this person has now not been punished for this crime and has been allowed to go free to maybe do the same to another person.

Mey He hasn't "got off" but has been found guilty and given a non-custodial sentence. It is perfectly possible to commit a crime without realising it's a crime until you are arrested and charged. I agree that not knowing the age of consent does seem unlikely but people are always demonstrating unexpected ignorance.

Goodness me . I wonder how many extra prisons we would have to build if every 16-18 year old male that had sex with a 13-15 year old girl has a custodial sentence. 13-15 old girls are frequently sexually active (sadly) and 16-18 year old young men frequently immature, naive and some of them even have learning difficulties. If every such pairing led to a charge of rape it would fill every court in the land.
This does not mean that it is a "good thing" when this happens. In the school I used to work with the staff used to ensure that boys who came new into the sixth form had the issue explained to them forcibly. "do not look for a girlfriend amongst the under 16s - or you could end up with a police record as a sex offender". As well as trying to discourage risky behaviour by girls.
Neither do I believe that any kind of faith school is a good thing. This is not the way to build an integrated society. I worry that Gove is going to encourage more by allowing people to set up free schools.
Police and the judiciary have to exercise judgement and that is what the judge did. No re-trial by newspaper!
I wonder if the judge in this case thought that the young man in the dock would not have been there had he been white?
There are of course many cases where violent and manipulative rapists do not get punished. I think that would be a better use of police and court time.

I'm still bothered about the school he went to, that instilled such appalling ideas into his ignorant head.

I've just read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Infidel', and as a Muslim immigrant into the West, she totally opposes such schools, and with good reason, obviously. Muslim schools teach submission and the utter control of women by their fathers, brothers and spouses. She knows what this feels like, and has put her life on the line fighting it.

He wasn't so innocent and protected. He had a computer, was on the internet, groomed the girl on-line, booked a hotel room and used a condom.

But again, I repeat, it is not the details of the crime and the circumstances that matter but I always understood that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence but in this case it seems the judge accepted that it could be. When did the law change? Will we now have criminals of all kinds pleading for leniency on the basis that there was some aspect of their crime that broke a low that they were ignorant of? Give a barrister a loop hole and he will soon make it into a chasm.