13 year old sexual predator not her abuser, says Judge

thanks butty, I was, as I said, cross and being cross isn't a good way to post your thoughts at speed. I do hope that the furore that this case has received, universally it seems, will lead to more care being taken with vulnerable young witnesses. But - we've been here before, haven't we. Still, things are better than 30 years ago....

Iam64 I appreciate that correction and your apology.

The sentence against the abuser, who walked free (!), is being reviewed after the outcry led in part by Caroline Criado-Perez (she of the Twitter abuse; see the blog about it from mumsnet on another thread).

My comment that any child who had been abused had been groomed was incorrect, for which apologies, I was so cross I pressed send before re-reading. I'll change that to 'the majority of children... '.

Nellie - good point about the adult defendants previous convictions not being made known in subsequent court cases. Everyone should have a fair trial, but in cases involving sexual offences, it seems to me the victims are subjected to cross examinations that re-victimise them

It's really appalling that the Judge made these remarks as he is the one who is supposed to be the arbiter of the law and failed to condemn the prosecution for his remarks.

As *kittylester" said the child was 13 and cannot at that age consent to sexual activity. That is it. It's no excuse to say you didn't know her age.

There has to be some better way of trying these cases than cross examining such vulnerable witnesses. There was a male barrister speaking on PM on the Radio who sounded really distressed when he was describing the nature of the questioning that some of the children he had worked with had to endure.

Am I right in still thinking that an adult defendants previous convictions are not allowed to be mentioned in a court case? Why can defence counsel make these allegations about the child's past.

When I think back to when I was 13 I thought. I knew it all. I thought. I was grown up.
I now know. I was no more than a child and I had a mixed up view on what was right or wrong.
What ever this 13 year old girl is or isn't the fact is that she is still a child, she has a lot to learn and it's up to older men not to take advantage of her and any others out there like her.

When did 15 become age of consent?!

" the judge agreed that the girl in question, who was just 13 years old, looked older, at least 14 or 15"

That's alright then.

There is a comma missing out of this thread title. And I'm itching to put it in.

It's the prosecutor that has been suspended.

I've already linked to that fact.

She only does it to annoy.....................
Thank goodness, it has just been announced on the news that the judge will not be able to preside over any more sexual abuse cases.

Butty, thanks for the info, I did type a reply previously but the posting black hole must have taken it!

Both the prosecutor Mr. Colover and the Judge Nigel Peters both referred to the 13 yr. old girl as being predatory.

Quote Nigel Peters ""The girl was predatory and she was egging you on."

I thought it was the judge? Was it both of them?

Would the judge have known about the computer images? And couldn't he be prosecuted separately for that?

Note it was the prosecuting barrister that used this language. it was not the defending barrister. Defies belief really.

The Attorney General is going to look into it. What more can be done?

Sorry Kittylester, is someone arguing with you?

Plus ça change… Was it not Judge Pickles who referred to the child victim in a sexual abuse case decades ago as "She's no angel"? This caused public outrage, yet here we are with exactly the same thing. No doubt, some idiot will tell us that "lessons have been learned".

The girl was 13. end of!!

Possibly because a decision has yet to made over whether it should go to the court of appeal, in view of the light sentence passed. The point is that a 13 year old cannot give consent and so cannot be a predator.

look. He's practically been struck off

A child who hasn't been groomed for abuse has been attacked. Grooming is inherent in child sexual abuse and encompasses everything from 'gentle' persuasion to exposure to abusive inages and films, to coercion and threats.

God save us from worn-out social workers.

The judge's decision is already to be reviewed So what is the point of the hysterical petition?

"Any child that has experienced sexual abuse has been groomed". That's just not true.

And don't lecture me.

The judge's comments were outrageous.

It's depressing that people still think this way.