Your Oxford
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email »
Judge claims paedophile victim 'dressed provocatively'
5:30am Monday 25th June 2007
Comments (83)A child protection charity has attacked a decision to save a paedophile from a long jail term after a judge said his 10-year-old rape victim dressed "provocatively".
Window cleaner Keith Fenn, of Starwort Path, Blackbird Leys, could be free in just four months after admitting twice having sex with the child.
Kidscape has branded the sentence dished out by Judge Julian Hall as a "disgrace" and called for him to be axed from the bench.
Judge Hall, who hit the headlines after telling another paedophile to buy his child victim a bicycle, could have jailed Fenn for at least five years.
At Oxford Crown Court on Friday, Judge Hall described the rape in a park in Henley-on-Thames, as an "absolute crime", but insisted it was an "exceptional" case because of the girl's perceived maturity.
Fenn, 25, was given concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences, but could will be free in months after spending eight months in jail on remand.
His friend Darren Wright, 34, was given a nine-month jail term for inciting the girl to engage in a sex act on the same night on October 14, last year. Unemployed Wright had also served eight months, so was immediately freed.
Judge Hall said: "It is an absolute crime because she was only 10.
"In my experience this has been the most difficult sentencing exercise I have ever had to decide on. The circumstances in this case are exceptional.
"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively.
"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16, that was a matter that was accepted."
The court was told the girl approached the two men in Henley-on-Thames.
"They started chatting in the street and she told them she was 16.
After making their way to a recreation ground in Luke Avenue, the girl - who cannot be named for legal reasons - had oral and full sex with Fenn.
In a police interview, when asked about whether she gave consent, she said: "I'm in the middle, I don't actually know."
Later Wright forced the girl to commit a sexual act on him at his home in Mount View, Henley-on- Thames.
Fenn had admitted two counts of rape of a child aged under 13 years and Wright admitted one charge of causing or inciting sexual activity with a child aged under 13 years.
Michele Elliot, from Kidscape, said: "This particular case really took my breath away because I cannot imagine a 25-year-old man not realising how old she was.
"This sentence is a disgrace.
"What message does this send to anyone considering doing the same?
"He should be off the bench.
"A decision like that is utterly ridiculous.
"Clearly, some judges seem to be a law unto themselves."
Both men were placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for 10 years.
Your Say YourOxford Mail
kelly, bic says...
8:57am Mon 25 Jun 07
Anon, says...
9:19am Mon 25 Jun 07
Rebecca, Oxford says...
9:46am Mon 25 Jun 07
I find his attitude and comments towards these sick individuals, and the poor victims that have to live with what has happened to them, absolutely disgusting and cannot believe that he is still allowed in court.
Something must be done before he stops anymore of these people to get off far more leniently than they ever should.
Rebecca, oxford says...
9:54am Mon 25 Jun 07
I find his attitude and comments towards these sick individuals, and the poor victims that have to live with what has happened to them, absolutely disgusting and cannot believe that he is still allowed in court.
Something must be done before he stops anymore of these people to get off far more leniently than they ever should.
Jane, Oxford says...
10:31am Mon 25 Jun 07
When these Judges make laughable sentences like this, it makes me wonder whether they have similar tendencies and have sympathy with the perverts - although of course if someone actually accused them of that, I expect they'd be in court and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Ella, Oxford says...
10:52am Mon 25 Jun 07
Gemz, oxford says...
12:17pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Carol, Oxford says...
1:02pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I too have the experience of Jane, above, this judge is very keen to assist police in lenient or non existent sentencing for 'informants'. and show absolutley no compassion to others.Maybe these paedophiles has been 'helpful' with information on other cases.
Ellajo, London says...
1:17pm Mon 25 Jun 07
julie, says...
1:26pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Anon (again!), says...
1:50pm Mon 25 Jun 07
ann, oxon says...
1:54pm Mon 25 Jun 07
he needs his head testing.
Richard, Chelmsford says...
1:55pm Mon 25 Jun 07
ann, oxon says...
1:59pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Rebecca, Oxford says...
2:13pm Mon 25 Jun 07
http://www.thisisoxf
ordshire.co.uk/news/
tiooxmail/display.va
r.1496141.0.mp_urges
_appeal_against_rape
_sentence.php
It's about an MP who is appealing to the Attorney General about this Judge. I am going to contact the MP to applaud what he is doing and to suggest that if he started a petition he would be easily able to collect many signatures from outraged members of the public. If anyone else wants to do the same, you can find his web page by putting in "Mike Penning, Hemel Hempstead MP" into a search engine, and contacting him through it.
Thankfully someone is doing something to try and stop this judge before anymore victims have to suffer his ludicrous sentencing.
Dan, Reading says...
2:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Fred, Oxford says...
3:23pm Mon 25 Jun 07
John, Ireland says...
3:54pm Mon 25 Jun 07
If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
Eric, Lancashire says...
4:34pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Worried, says...
4:34pm Mon 25 Jun 07
kelly wrote:I absolutely disagree with this sentiment.
Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old.
Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy.
In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators.
It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children.
For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
ellajo, London says...
5:03pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I don't know if you have experience of being in care, but one thing you are starved of when living in care is
is love and affection. This 10 year old did want something.... but sex? No! What she wanted was to feel loved, special, valued, that she mattered to someone.
Every Child wants to feel those things, but it is not an invitation to abuse, it is shocking that you can even say this, much less write it down, its reprehensible.
Children 'need and want' affection, it is how that need is interpreted that is in question in the case of paedophiles. Affection is what
she needed and craved and so would you if you had been in care from infancy.
It is unbelievable that men cannot distinquish between love and affection from sex. The fact that men seem to think that a child of 10 'wants sex' speaks volumes about some of the men within our society.
Michael McManus, standlake says...
5:18pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Anon, Newcastle says...
5:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Kevin, Kuala Lumpur says...
5:41pm Mon 25 Jun 07
daddymoos, Mars (I wish!) says...
5:51pm Mon 25 Jun 07
http://search.petiti
ons.pm.gov.uk/kbroke
r/number10/petitions
/search.lsim?ha=1157
&sc=number10&qt=incr
ease+sentencing+for+
paedophiles
more people that sign it the more chance something will be done.any person convicted of sexual abuse against a child should get a life sentence which starts once the judgement is handed down. no time off for time already served. they should lose their human rights the moment they commit the crime. personally i would have the lethal injection for this crime... the ONLY way we could be 100% sure they would not reoffend.
Sheila, England says...
5:56pm Mon 25 Jun 07
****In a police interview, when asked about whether she gave consent, she said: "I'm in the middle, I don't actually know."****
daddymoos, the moon! says...
6:20pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Worried, says...
6:24pm Mon 25 Jun 07
You're talking about this particular case. That's the relevent article and that's the relevent comment.
You are as much to blame for creating victims for the predators through allowing the loss of childhood through selfishness for profit and vanity, just as everyone is.
By not taking a stand against this, we're all adding to the problem. What sentence for us all?
Matt, Newark says...
7:03pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Gemz wrote:It wasn't rape, the problem is that newspapers misrepresent the facts to sell more papers. It was consentual and apparantly after having a look at the girl the judge agreed that she could look 16. Some people hit puberty earlier, and without a picture it's hard to decide what to believe. For now though, if you cut through all the bullshit of the media and find the real story, the 2 year sentence is a very good one, if the defendant should of gone to jail at all.
What was this judge thinking. does it matter how old this child was rape is rape and shouldnt be taken lightely just becuase she dressed older. Judge Hall should be kicked off the bench as he is a disgrace to the whole justice system
yvonne, tampa, fl says...
7:22pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Viv Drohan, OX$ 2JP says...
7:27pm Mon 25 Jun 07
With Judge Julian Hall's history of outrageously lax dealings with child sex offenders one is forced to wonder where his 'loyalties' lie on these issues. With regards to other instances of his "ruling" over a Court of Law.... I can only surmise that he resides on a different planet to the most of us 'normal' folk!!! HE MUST BE SACKED...NOW!
Kit, Oxford says...
7:34pm Mon 25 Jun 07
tinyurl.com/ybphfb
It is absolutely crazy that he is letting sick people get away with this - there is no way you could mistake a 10 year old for a 16 year old.
Chris, London says...
8:16pm Mon 25 Jun 07
1. As science has long accepted, children of all ages are sexual beings (yes, right from birth, probably before - if this revolts you, consider what you mean by 'sexual'). In particular, puberty can begin as early as 8 years old, and it is quite possible for a girl to be physically developed by 10; hence quite possible to be mistaken for a 16 year old. I don't know if this particular girl did look 16 or not, but nor do any of the other people on this thread writing things like 'A 10 year old can never be mistaken. A 10 year old is not a sexual being'.
2. This is not a case of rape: the sex was entirely consensual. It is only called 'rape' because British law deems that children under 13 cannot give their consent - but, of course, if Fenn really thought she was 16, then he would have had no reason to ignore her protestations of eagerness.
3. As Matt from Newark has already pointed out, if you take these things into account, then (if Fenn really did think the girl was 16, which is a big if) his crime was simply to be mistaken. He thought he was having consensual sex with someone of legal age. He's still committed a crime, but a 2-year sentence does not seem too lenient for making a mistake. And, incidentally, to the idiotic commenter who wrote 'no time off for time already served': time already served is not exactly 'time off', given that it's spent in police custody/detention! Or perhaps you'd like to spend your next tea break in police custody?
A note in advance to all those who will accuse me of being a 'sympathiser' (something that has absurd overtones of 'collaborator'): a rational debate on the whole issue is only possible once hysteria (on both sides) is given up. Rape (ie. non-consensual sex) is clearly a problem; but it seems to me to be much more a grey area whether sex with someone under the current age of consent is such a problem. I don't just mean that the current age of consent might possibly be too high, but rather that the whole idea of age of consent might possibly be muddled and should perhaps be scrapped (please don't ignore my 'might possiblys' and 'perhapses'). In any case, the issue is something which needs to be debated calmly and rationally, without hysterical accusations flying. I recall the posts on the story when Judge Hall was accused of lenient sentencing over a man who had put his hands down a young girl's pants: one poster gave out his wife's name and work address and encouraged sexual assault on her (the post has since been removed).
anon 2, Oxford says...
8:52pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Mr Vertigo, says...
8:56pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Lara, says...
9:10pm Mon 25 Jun 07
concerned, Oxford says...
9:24pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I can only assume (because of your comments) that you might encompass the thought of a teenage 'liason' ?!? But SURELY if you were approached (unsolicited) in a street by an obviously young girl (and even 16 is still very young) would YOU feel it was OK/normal to have sex with her.. not knowing anything about that girl??? Maybe I am being naive
Steve, Oxford says...
10:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
For those who were not in the court when the judge sentenced these two men: This was not a violent attack, it was not rape in anything other than the legal definition of the word. It was not a knowingly paedaphilic act. Whether or not Kit from Oxford can believe it there are people out there who look older than they are...especially when dressed in a certain way and put in a certain situation. This is not in any way to blame this girl. She is 10 years old and cannot be expected to understand fully the consequences of her actions. There sometimes situations where no one is to blame...at least not in the manner in which those of you who like to witch-hunt are looking for. There are no aggresive predators in this case - these men are not a danger to your children, they are just normal men who made a tragic mistake, and if you think that the months that they have spent in custody is all the punishment they will get then you are kidding yourself...just read the bile and anger in the comments above and remember this is just the tip of the iceberg. Their names and addresses have been published by this paper. Their lives will never be the same.
We must all remember that we all are not judge and jury - none of us have heard all the facts in this case, and therefore none of us are fully able to criticise the judge's decision for sentence. He alone has heard all there is to hear - from the defendants, from the young girl, from social services and from any and all other sources available to the court. If you think he made this decision without a great deal of consideration, knowing that he would get this backlash, then you cannot have given it very much thought.
When people lash out like those have in the comments above it does nothing to help the young girl at the centre of the case, it does nothing to help society and it does nothing for justice. We must learn that not everything is always black and white. A quick and thoughtless reaction often does more harm than no reaction at all.
katie g, australia says...
12:54am Tue 26 Jun 07
Paranoid male wrote:So... let's see, a man who is in his late 20's or early thirties thinks it's okay to have forced sex with a 16 year old?? Can you not see the distorted thinking here?? And,as has been said, forced sex is forced sex. But then, you need pergaps more than half a braincell to realise that. Taking things further does not include rape, buddy. Oh, and for the record: if a woman does not have public hair, she is a child.
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16
furious, Australia says...
2:02am Tue 26 Jun 07
John wrote:The fact remains that she was 10 yrs old. I have never seen someone that old look 16 and the only proof that we have that she was consenting is that the PEDOPHILES who RAPED her say that she consented... because she never admitted to consenting. and the fact still remains that they had sex with a 10yr old.
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
furious, Australia says...
2:20am Tue 26 Jun 07
Worried wrote:It does not matter what underwaer the person is wearing!! the only way to see underwear is to take off the clothes over it.
kelly wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It\'s time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
furious, Australia says...
2:36am Tue 26 Jun 07
Worried wrote:It does not matter what underwaer the person is wearing!! the only way to see underwear is to take off the clothes over it.
kelly wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It\\\'s time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
Vanessa Brown, Australia says...
4:16am Tue 26 Jun 07
rose, says...
4:54am Tue 26 Jun 07
Paranoid male, London UK says...
6:30am Tue 26 Jun 07
He is a ladies man, well travelled, experienced, a people person, so if anyone could tell the true age of a woman, its him.
One night he had arranged a party at his place, invited friends, and was having a nice time chatting up the ladies when one particular woman took his attention. He didn't know which one of his friends had invited her along too, but they got on well and she appeared interested in taking things further. As his thoughts turned to sex later, she suddenly became ill and out of nowhere, her mum appeared (one of his friends..) and started complaining to him about why was 'he' allowing her 12 yr daughter to drink alchol!
He was very shaken by the idea that he could think she looked 18 not 12, and came to realise that my paranoid approach to women was perhaps not so daft after all, if even he had trouble telling the true age of a girl.
You can go to almost any pub/nightclub and find girls there under age, drinking quite openly, with fake ID, acting in an adult manner.
If we want to make a difference, then we should start to put our house in order and insist these premises actually uphold the legal drinking age, as very few bother in reality.
Paranoid Male, London UK says...
6:44am Tue 26 Jun 07
Local pimps recruit from the homes knowing the girls are easy prey and our great child care services do nothing to stop it, as it would infringe on the childs right of freedom.
Whilst I'm not a religious person myself, I see the old fashioned approach of locking children up at home and not letting them out when they misbehave as something rather practical, that religious friends of mine have a much harder attitude to dealing with their children and not allowing them to get away with dressing as they like.
kelly, bic says...
8:24am Tue 26 Jun 07
Worried wrote:ok so i missed out the words 'with in reason' I was talking about short skirts etc. When i was ten I was still playing with barbies. You're totally right that childrens childness is almost wiped out by the age of ten. And it's very sad I think. Sorry I should have worded my post slightly better. Unfortunately in our world we cannot wear what we like but...in an ideal world they should be able to wear whatever and feel safe. I have seen those so called garments for sale and have also been rupulsed that the market even consider selling them for children. I wasn't allowed them till I was about 14. But I was never allowed t-shirts with those sorts of slogans on, I'm only 20 now so it wasn't that long ago. The long and short is. This 'judge' is wrong and was periodically wrong. Also some one stated it was only rape because she was under age! you're wrong. If you read the whole artical she was forced to perform sexual acts later on, they still vialated her personal space. A grown man approaching on a ten year old even if he did think she was 16. It's still not right!!!
kelly wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
kelly, bic says...
8:33am Tue 26 Jun 07
Laraine Santagato, usa says...
8:56am Tue 26 Jun 07
Steve, Oxford says...
9:21am Tue 26 Jun 07
1. SHE WAS NOT FORCED. At any time, in any way. The papers have this wrong and this was conceded by the prosecution and admitted by the girl.
2. SHE LOOKS 16+ AND TOLD THE MEN THAT SHE WAS 16. The prosecution conceded that she was, and I quote from the prosecutor "this was a girl in a woman's body".
It is just not right to witch-hunt like this. This is not one of those cases, and I know they exist and I truely believe that predatory violent men who attack and rape young girls should be jailed for a very very long time - BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. If you don't belive me then get a copy of the court transcript yourself (you can get it from Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.) and READ IT before condemning and viciously verbally attacking in a situation where YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS.
Kristina, says...
11:15am Tue 26 Jun 07
John wrote:John, how on earth can you say that this child wanted to have sex?
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
Where you there yourself?
did she tell you this?
Steve, Oxford says...
11:57am Tue 26 Jun 07
John wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
John, how on earth can you say that this child wanted to have sex?
Where you there yourself?
did she tell you this?
My God Kristina, can't you read my post above? I mean, its right above yours but you didn't bother to read it? She told the court . It is in the transcript of the Judge's remarks.
Steve, Oxford says...
12:12pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Why can we not at least consider the possibility that the real end result here is that this girl needs help and has possibly been treated very badly thorughout her life...I don't mean sexually, just has not been given the love and stability that we all need in life. Why is it so necessary for us to have to go after someone?
Jane, London says...
1:54pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Paranoid male wrote:Yes I completely agree in passport checking (providing they have a passport-kids these days!).
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16
As any adult with average intelligence wouldnt be able to tell the different between a 10 year old kid and a 16 year old.
Like that would require common sense! We cant have that now can we.
I dont care if they thought she was 160, what are two 25/34 year olds doing having sex with a 16 (or so they thought-whatever!) year old in a park at night?
And the 10 year old kid can even say she consented etc but 10 year old dont have the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand and gasp the situation and make such a judgment.
The judge should be taken off the bench, he is so out of touch and I find it quite disturbing that someone with that way of thinking could preside over such a case.
But its not really surprising, as lots of judges and people in positions of power are pedophiles themselves or know people who are, and want to protect their friends.
Rather than the kids-the ones who they should be protecting.
Steve, Oxford says...
2:37pm Tue 26 Jun 07
As any adult with average intelligence wouldnt be able to tell the different between a 10 year old kid and a 16 year old.
Like that would require common sense! We cant have that now can we.
I dont care if they thought she was 160, what are two 25/34 year olds doing having sex with a 16 (or so they thought-whatever!) year old in a park at night?
And the 10 year old kid can even say she consented etc but 10 year old dont have the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand and gasp the situation and make such a judgment.
1. As I have said before, everyone in the case, prosecution and defence alike, agreed that she looked at least 16. Whether or not you believe it, there are people out there who look drastically older than their age. How she was dressed was only important in that it gave further credence to the idea that she looked older than she was. We generally dont expect children to dress in this manner.
2. Legally you are correct - a 10 year old cannot consent - that is why this offence is rape even though there are none of the usual hallmarks of rape - force, resistance, any behaviour, verbal or physical, which indicate a lack of consent. Of course had she been 16 then this would not have been rape. It may well have been considered extremely seedy activity by the general public, but it would not have been a sexual offence. The fact that despite how she looked she is actually 10 is the only reason we are talking about this, and is the fact that people have such a hard time dealing with it without resorting to knee-jerk opinions.
3. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that points 1 and 2 above are true, and that anyone would believe that she was 16, and that both men thought she was consenting, if not even instigating. Are these men now as "evil" and "disgusting" as a man who follows a schoolgirl home from school, one who looks 10 years old, grabs her and takes her to the park and forcefully rapes her? Should they be judged in the same manner? Arent these two situations qualitatively different? I think that when most of you sit down and think about it you would agree that they are. One should be treated with much more leniency than the other. The other should be jailed for a very very long time.
Whether you believe me or not this judgement was fair and well considered. Again, I urge you to find out and read the facts before commenting on a website read by many people in this area. Your remarks will have a much wider effect than you think. Understanding the situation has to be the only fair way forwards you cannot expect to hold a reasonable and educated opinion on any matter when you dont know anything about it.
Andy, says...
2:44pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Jess, oxon says...
6:16pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Steve, Oxford says...
7:26pm Tue 26 Jun 07
I will say one last thing and I hope it sinks in:
Jess...these men are NOT A DANGER TO YOUR CHILDREN. They are not predatory paedophiles. I can only ask you to re-read what I said in all my post above to try to convince you of this.
I know you won't believe me but it bears saying anyway as it is the truth.
Wendy, london says...
8:04pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Soph, Reading says...
8:23pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Steve (and everyone else), I have read what you ahve said, and I believe also that the people here need to check the facts - which I do not know myself. I just want to say that you are wrong, Steve; there are laws against having sex and performing sexual acts in a public place, consent/age apart!
Whilst I am having real trouble in 'getting my head around' a child of 10 looking 16, can I point us in a slightly different direction???
Remember Jon Venables and Robert Thompson who killed James Bulger? They were 10, and yet not many people jumped to their defence saying that they were not old enough to know the consequences, not mature enough to be treated like adults.
My personal feeling is that 10 year olds should be treated as children in both of these circumstances.
As far as I am aware, the offence these men were charged with is a strict liability offence i.e. that merely by committing the act, they are committing a crime, whether or not they 'mean' to do it. However, the offence is referring to a child under the age of 13 (I believe), so therefore I find it easier to believe that they could mistake a 10 year old for a 13 year old (early puberty does happen).
As for someone's comments about all people being sexual beings; I agree to a degree, but just because (I) (aged 5, 8 or 10 or whatever) experiement with my sexuality on my own at home, it certainly doesn't mean (I) am ready to have sex.
This is a complex case, and abhorrant though it is to think of paedophiles 'getting away with' their offences, it is not just of anyone here who has not been a party to all facts in the case to make a judgment.
jacki, Australia says...
8:32pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Secondly, This is NOT the FIRST TIME this judge has given dodgy decisions about child rape. So those people whining about everyone else not doing their research and being mean to those poor innocent defendants and that dear old judge - please do some research yourself.
Thirdly, there were other witnesses who said she might have looked older than 10 but within a couple of minutes of talking to her it was clear she was very, very young.
These men "chatted" with her in the park and spent hours sexually indulging themselves with her. They were up-close-and-persona
l with a 10 year old body. No WAY would they have not realised she was under-age.
The law allows for some level of "mitigation" with cases like these. But this case went too far. How convenient that the age of consent over there is 16 and that just happens to be how old they believed her to be. "Honest we thought she was 16!!!" Yeah right. And pigs can fly.
The judge needs to be removed from office, not just for this case, but for his attitude toward child abuse in general.
Steve, Oxford says...
10:46pm Tue 26 Jun 07
You are right - having sex in a public place is an offence - but it is a public order offence rather than a sexual offence. It would be of a completely different nature and would not be attracting the attention, or the sentence, that this offence has attracted. I can see how my remarks might have been misleading and for that I apologise.
I know it is hard to believe that this girl might have looked that much older, but she does.
I agree again with you concerning the Bulger case. I thought then, and think now that these children should not be treated the same as adults.
You are also right in that this is a strict liability offence. It does not matter what they were thinking or what they believed, they are guilty of the offence. The circumstances are purely mitigation after a guilty plea or guilty virdict. In this case the former.
I am heartened by the fact that you obviously have strong feelings about this and yet are still able to see the possible other side. I hope that there are more like you out there.
This is such an emotive topic, and I am surprised I have not had more people attacking me for the views I am expressing.
Jacki:
I agree with your first paragraph...there is no evidence that she "had learnt sexual skills in the past". These kinds of comments do nothing to add to this discussion .
As for the fact that those talking to her could tell that she was not 16. I do not know enough to really comment except perhaps to suggest that perhaps these people knew how old she was, and didn't meet her when she was all dressed up and trying to act older. Again I want to make it clear I do not in any way blame this girl. She is only 10 and must have gone through some terrible experiences in her life, though as far as I know there was no history of sexual abuse mentioned in the judge's remarks. She deserves to be treated well and to be given the same opportunities and love that everyone deserves. I only hope that from this point on this will happen.
As for the quality of the judge's decision and his attitude towards paedophiles, I think I have said everything I have to say. I guess each of us will make up our own mind and the Court of Appeal will (should the AG call it in) have the last word on the issue (unless of course it goes up the House of Lords).
Anon, Oxford says...
11:58am Thu 28 Jun 07
Soph wrote:OOOOOOOH you have really crossed a line here. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson should never in a million years have been treated like children in this case. In my opinion and the opinion of many others - children know what murder is by the time they reach about 8 years old. These two boys knew what they were doing and still continued to do it. These are the people that are now more of a danger to your children than any paedophile. These boys no way should be roaming free now - had I had been the judge in this case - I would have sentanced them to a minimum of 30 years in prison.
Steve said \"Of course had she been 16 then this would not have been rape. It may well have been considered extremely seedy activity by the general public, but it would not have been a sexual offence.\" Steve (and everyone else), I have read what you ahve said, and I believe also that the people here need to check the facts - which I do not know myself. I just want to say that you are wrong, Steve; there are laws against having sex and performing sexual acts in a public place, consent/age apart! Whilst I am having real trouble in \'getting my head around\' a child of 10 looking 16, can I point us in a slightly different direction??? Remember Jon Venables and Robert Thompson who killed James Bulger? They were 10, and yet not many people jumped to their defence saying that they were not old enough to know the consequences, not mature enough to be treated like adults. My personal feeling is that 10 year olds should be treated as children in both of these circumstances. As far as I am aware, the offence these men were charged with is a strict liability offence i.e. that merely by committing the act, they are committing a crime, whether or not they \'mean\' to do it. However, the offence is referring to a child under the age of 13 (I believe), so therefore I find it easier to believe that they could mistake a 10 year old for a 13 year old (early puberty does happen). As for someone\'s comments about all people being sexual beings; I agree to a degree, but just because (I) (aged 5, 8 or 10 or whatever) experiement with my sexuality on my own at home, it certainly doesn\'t mean (I) am ready to have sex. This is a complex case, and abhorrant though it is to think of paedophiles \'getting away with\' their offences, it is not just of anyone here who has not been a party to all facts in the case to make a judgment.
As it stands with this case however - although I do not beleive for one second the men in question mistook this girl for 13 - I do beleive that they are not 100% at fault - and I don't beleive paedophilia is a problem here. I think that definatey they should serve a trem for rape - but I think we need to hold our horses before acusing them of being paedophiles.
daniel, Birmingham says...
1:21pm Thu 28 Jun 07
sheila, manchester says...
2:31pm Fri 29 Jun 07
Marg, Lancashire says...
4:25pm Fri 29 Jun 07
Lesley, Leeds says...
12:35pm Sat 30 Jun 07
izzy hammond, Cumbria says...
11:30pm Sat 30 Jun 07
I am a survivor and know what it is to have a life sentence.
No matter how a child or woman dresses, rape is rape. It is not about sex it is about power and control and it is a crime. How can Judge Hall live with himself when he has given the green light to these perpertrators. These survivors are the ones with the life sentence. Shame on you Judge Hall how can you sleep at night!!
steve, oxford says...
9:12pm Mon 2 Jul 07
rob, says...
4:13pm Tue 3 Jul 07
k/2/hi/uk_news/62374
80.stm . So if, on close examination, an expert on the human body felt the girl was 14 or older, I think its quite plausible that when she was provocatively dressed, and in bad light, she could have appeared 16.
People have said 16 is a 'convenient' age. Yes, but that's the age the girl claimed she was.
And other people have said that they've never seen a 10yo who looks 16... but how do they know? the next 16yo you see walking down the street could really be 10...
paul, oxford says...
12:58pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Janine, says...
12:43pm Sat 7 Jul 07
There is no point in using the defence that the sex was 'consensual' as the fact that she was 10yrs old makes this point completely irrelevant and invalid - as stated before by many, 10 yr olds do not have the emotional capacity to understand the weight of such decisions. So it was rape.
brandi, mo says...
8:34am Tue 10 Jul 07
lucy, uk says...
12:47am Thu 12 Jul 07
Mira, Melbourne says...
9:14am Wed 26 Sep 07
Angry Parent, Wiltshire says...
12:48am Mon 1 Oct 07
Perhaps someone will anally rape this Judge and then simply buy him a shiny new wig to cheer him up.
It's people like this judge, and few others including even the paedophile, who make me think seriously about bringing back the death penalty!
Angry Parent, Wiltshire says...
1:27am Mon 1 Oct 07
The law in the UK is simple and clear - anyone over the age of 23 years old who has sex with a child (as this girl of 10 years most certainly is) can not claim he/she was unaware of the age and/or believed the child was over 16. It is that simple.
Whether this girl of 10 years old looked 13 years old or 16 years old makes no odds. These perverts knew she was a child, even if of apparantly legal age of 16.
My son is 22 and one of his mates started seeing a girl of 16 or 17. My son and all his mates of the same age were not comfortable with the arrangement. She is a child, even in comparison to him and his contemporary mates. A girl of 10, even if she looks older is appearance is surely a baby, a real tot, in her mind. I care not for the sickening BS of all those who claim that she was consenting. I have loads of femail relatives including nieces who are preschool who sprawl around and show off their knickers whilst playing and relaxing. Am I to be convinced by these same nonces who have posted here - "rob on 4:13pm Tue 3 Jul 07"; "Marg, Lancashire on 4:25pm Fri 29 Jun 07"; "Matt, Newark on 7:03pm Mon 25 Jun 07"; "Chris, London on 8:16pm Mon 25 Jun 07"; "Steve, Oxford on 9:21am Tue 26 Jun 07" that each time a child acts in a 'prococious manner' she should expect to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults? I should think not!
Sexual beings? That means we are each of carrying sexual organs and the potential to reproduce. It is actually a biological term, any other term is misused (IMO) and misleading, in the same way that 'all creative energy is sexual' does not mean that when I am painting a picture I am actually having sex with it.
The facts here are quite simple, those who keep on about getting these right... A ten year old child was taken advantage of by TWO men over 10 years her senior. There is something weird going on here no-matter what. I am not religious, I am certainly no prude. They deserve to be treated with strictest hands and sentenced accordingly. If for nothing else, then for their callous indifference to the girl they were taking pleasure from. After all, how mature is 16? Just because the law says she has legal consent at the age of 16, does that mean we can pray on her when she is vulnerable? If so, then the law needs a **** good whack on the backside.
I hope the MP with the sense to see the wood within the trees succeeds in the mission.
Kyle Johnson, Cardiff says...
1:01am Wed 23 Jan 08
jdv, Singapore says...
9:27am Sat 22 Mar 08
jdv, Singapore says...
9:35am Sat 22 Mar 08
Nick Parker, London says...
9:40am Sat 22 Mar 08
Is there any campaign that one can sign up to? Perhaps the Mail should start one.
I used to work as a journalist for the Oxford Star, and occasionally the Mail, in the early '80s and find the story about this judge completely shocking.
Judges are as capable of sick behaviour as anyone else in England. What is the source of his leniency towards paedophiles child rapists and abusers?
If the Appeals Court say Hall's sentencing is wrong, he should have his robes removed, or whatever the equivalent of sacking a judge is.
I understand Hall has more child abuse cases coming up to pass judgement on. That is really quite scary.
anon, says...
4:44pm Sat 22 Mar 08
Judge Julian Hall
In this section
- Fowl play is all the rage
- Swine flu: Brookes says 10 infected
- Find yourself a swine flu friend, says PCT
- Thames Water is the best, says inspectorate
- Hospital scoops award
- Distribution defence centre chief cleared
- Motorist denies death crash blame
- Forces day out in Abingdon
- Legion salutes fallen heroes
- Gangs clash in street battle
Sponsored Links
UK Debt Help and Advice | IVA help and advice | The truth about IVAs | Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Paranoid male, London UK says...
8:02am Mon 25 Jun 07