SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN

A written note that flattered a 13-year-old girl, asked her to come around for “some fun” if she wanted to and stated that it was okay if she did not was not just an invitation. The words used were capable of amounting to an incitement to sexual activity. The court advised that in circumstances where the need to appeal arose during the currency of criminal proceedings and the appeal could be mounted very quickly, it was sufficient to tell the jury that a procedural issue had arisen that was neither the fault of the defence or prosecution and that the case had to be adjourned until the date that the issue could be resolved; to say otherwise would lead to rife speculation.

A sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on a 44-year-old woman who had pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a 14-year-old boy was unduly lenient. Although the offences had been out of character, there were several aggravating features, including the disparity in age, the fact that the offender took advantage of the victim’s inebriation, a breach of trust, and a lack of remorse.

A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a senior police officer who had been convicted of a number of sexual offences against his wife and teenage boys. In a case of this nature, where the offending spanned a long period of time and where there had been significant changes in the legislation, Crown counsel should ensure that assistance was given to the judge in relation to his sentencing powers.

A recorder had erred in varying an order so that the identity of a young offender could be made public; he had given insufficient consideration to the public interest in the effective rehabilitation of the offender.

A recorder had not erred in refusing a defence application to cross-examine a rape victim pursuant to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41 in order to question her regarding her sexual relationship with another man.

It had not been logically inconsistent for a jury to find a man accused of sexual activity with a child guilty of having intercourse with her but not guilty of digitally penetrating her as they were separate incidents and the surrounding circumstances of the latter might have led the jury to be not sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

The purpose of the legislation making it a crime punishable with imprisonment to have sexual relations with those under 16 years was to protect those under 16. A reduction of punishment on the basis that the victim encouraged the commission of the offence was wrong. The victim’s vulnerability was an aggravating rather than a mitigating feature.

Although part of prosecuting counsel’s cross-examination of a rape defendant, related to bad character and based on inadmissible hearsay evidence, had been misjudged and regrettable, it had not affected the overall fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the verdict.

A discretionary life sentence imposed under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 for assault on a child under 13 by penetration was not excessive. The offender was a predatory paedophile with previous convictions for sexual offences against children and the offence was of sufficient seriousness to warrant life imprisonment.