A sentence of two years’ detention was not appropriate in the case of a 14-year-old boy who had committed sexual offences against his eight-year-old cousin; the evidence showed that he did not pose a real risk to others and a custodial sentence would not be in the interests of his welfare. A supervision order for a term of three years was imposed instead.
14-YEAR-OLD CONVICTED OF SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED AGAINST YOUNG COUSIN APPROPRIATENESS OF SENTENCE OF DETENTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 s.44(1) CHILDREN’S WELFARE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 s.37(1) CUSTODIAL SENTENCES DETENTION PREVENTIVE JUSTICE RAPE s.37 s.44 SENTENCING SUPERVISION ORDERS YOUNG OFFENDERS
A sentence of a three-year supervision order imposed on a 17-year-old for offences of sexual assault on a child under 13 and causing a child to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient, as the long-term need for public protection required appropriate intervention that would not be provided by the imposition of a detention and training order.
CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CHILD SEX OFFENCES PRE-SENTENCE REPORTS RISK OF REOFFENDING SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT SUPERVISION ORDER IMPOSED ON TEENAGER WITH TROUBLED BACKGROUND SUPERVISION ORDERS UNDUE LENIENCY YOUNG OFFENDERS
A community sentence was not unduly lenient where the offender had pleaded of guilty to an offence of assault by penetration contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.2(1) on the basis that he was mistaken as to the identity of the victim, believing her to be somebody else, who would have consented to his advances.
ASSAULT BY PENETRATION MISTAKEN IDENTITY OFFENDER MISTAKING IDENTITY OF VICTIM s.1 s.1(1) s.1(2) s.3 s.3(1)(d) s.97 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.2(1) SUPERVISION ORDERS UNDUE LENIENCY