A Right AVP Devon Mash-up

 

 

Locked Up - part 1

 

 

Locked Up - part 2

 

 

Locked Up - part 3

 

Locked Up - part 4

 

 

From the country that is the UK (Uncaring Kingdom) comes the above story of 2 girls, who have to be locked into their bedroom each night, due to the fact they live with a paedophile for s stepfather.

 

Aided and abetted by "Selfish Mum" and TPTB - Devon MASH.

 

Proof (as if any is needed), that nothing will ever change in the UK when it comes to safeguarding and protecting children.

 

I will leave you to read the articles, if you haven't already, and contemplate the facts of the story.

 

Devon MASH have a website, which includes several amazingly bold statements which counteract this decision totally - one of the best being "The MASH is staffed with professionals from a range of agencies including police, probation, fire, ambulance, health, education and social care. These professionals share information to ensure early identification of potential significant harm, and trigger interventions to prevent further harm" Unbelievable isn't it.

 

Several obvious questions have to be asked at the very least. Locking a child in a room is abuse in itself. What happens if case of a fire? What happens if the monitor stops working? What happens if the girls are ill? (vomit out of the window?), what happens when the mother takes a shower or baths(lock-up time again?), what affect will this have on the long term wellbeing and mental health of the girls? Children need the safety and freedom that should come with childhood - not grow up in an extended prison environment - let out for the day then face lock-up each night.

 

Ultimately of course, the blame is placed squarely with "Selfish Mum" - who in the world would take the side of a new paedophile husband over their own flesh & blood? This goes against all normal human instincts, and if the choice has been made by "Selfish Mum", the children should not have to be in a situation where their childhood and safety is taken away from them in this way.

 

Of course, as well as "Selfish Mum" taking the blame, Devon MASH have a huge amount to answer to. With such an arrangement of "experts" (hmmmm), detailed above, how did they come to such a catastrophically awful decision? "Ensure early identification of potential significant harm and trigger interventions to prevent further harm" - don't make me laugh - how does living with a paedophile stepfather and being imprisoned each night constitute this??

 

In 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of a child. Included in the charter are the below articles:

 

• Article 3

  1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

  2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

  3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
• Article 9

  1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

  2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known
• Article 19

  1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

  2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.
• Article 27

  1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

  2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.
• Article 34

  States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:

  (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity

 

 

Never mind the Human Rights of "Selfish Mum" and "Paedo Stepfather" - who exactly is looking out for the Human Rights of these 2 girls? Who is representing and advocating for them on their behalf with this situation? Certainly not Devon MASH, who seem more interested in the rights of Selfish Mum & Paedo Stepfather. Certainly not their "Selfish Mum".

 

This really needs to be resolved quickly - no child should have to grow up being locked away at night to be protected from a paedophile stepfather who still poses a risk to young girls. Whilst decisions like this are being made, it just proves the point that everyone knows - lessons are NOT being learnt, and nothing will EVER change in this country.

Northern Ireland and Sarah's Law (Not)

 

Sarah Payne

 

 

Sarah's Law is no panacea for scourge of paedophilia

 

 

So says the title of this article, which was published in the Belfast telegraph last week. Rather a misleading assumption imho, has anyone ever stated that Sarah's Law was a one-stop remedy for paedophilia?

 

This is a very anti-Sarah's Law article from start to finish, and is filled with the usual misconceptions and unproven myths about the scheme, and also seems to be confusing Sarah's Law with online vigilantism. I am not sure how much about the workings of Sarah's law the author knows - not a lot by reading through it.

 

"Our Justice Minister, David Ford, is against introducing the legislation here. He fears it could lead to vigilante-type attacks". I would like to know why and how exactly Mr Ford thinks this? In the first place, any disclosures that are made (if necessary), are made in strictest confidence, only to the person/people directly responsible for the child or children concerned, and with the condition that they do not pass any information onto third parties. Secondly, sites on social networking that "name and shame" paedophiles and sex offenders, are far more likely to lead to vigilante-type attacks, where names, (potentially) addresses and all details are available for all and sundry to see, and more often than not are seemingly there just for the purpose of people venting their hatred towards this crime.

 

"Sarah's Law allows information to be given not just on those convicted of a sexual offence, but those against whom unproven allegations have been made" Really? Is this really the case? Sarah's Law is there as a "right to know", for parents to be able to better protect their child against someone who their child is in contact with who could pose a risk to the child's safety. From the guidelines "If police checks show that the individual has a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police will consider sharing this information with the person(s) best placed to protect the child," Note the "Has a record" bit. Obviously people who have had unproven allegations made against them will not fall into this category. Why has the author assumed this? Where has the author gotten this from?

 

"Another danger is that the sex offender register lists a 16-year-old, who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend and who poses no threat to children" And? If a disclosure request is made, would the police disclose such information? Would this person pose a risk towards children? Again, from the guidelines "If the checks show that the individual you are asking about has a record for child sexual offences or other information that indicates they pose a risk of serious harm to the child, the police may disclose this to the person who is most able to protect the child. It should be noted that details about a person’s previous convictions are treated as confidential and that the police will disclose information only if it is lawful, necessary and proportionate to do so in the interests of protecting a child from harm" As per my previous point, note the highlighted part. "Only if it is lawful, necessary and proportionate". Using the example given by the author, this would be none of the three and I am sure a disclosure would not be made in this case.

 

"Under Sarah's Law I foresee a flood of requests for information about the sad, lonely bachelor who lives in the most run-down house in the neighbourhood." Quite possibly. However, with the aim of the scheme being "to give parents, carer, guardians and other interested parties a more formal mechanism for requesting information about an individual who has contact with their child or a child close to them if they are concerned that the individual is a child sexual offender", anyone who made such requests would be sent away with no information. Sarah's Law does not allow for such requests to be made (made maybe, but action taken, nope). Maybe the author should read These five scenarios, particularly the fourth one, to understand a bit better. And a "flood"? Jersey has had Sarah's Law for two years now, and rather than a flood, requests have been a trickle. Two requests in two years so far (as far as I know). There may not have been a "flood" of requests, but this Law is there for those who need it. If it helps  safeguard one child, that is a positive result.

 

"I don't know the answers but I do know it's time we held our noses and dealt comprehensively with this issue. Because hysteria, ranting, or opting for gimmicks, does nothing to enhance child safety." Agree 100% with the first point. I wonder what Sara Payne would think, hearing the scheme she fought for being called a "gimmick"? I wonder what the people who have requested and received disclosures, being better able to protect their children from know child sex offenders would think - would they think this "a gimmick"?

 

I could go on, but you get the gist. Every unproven excuse there is. You'd think, with the success of Sarah's Law in the UK, these myths would have been put to bed a long time ago. Not so it seems.

 

Northern Ireland have been campaigning for Sarah's Law (along with Isle of Man) for a lot longer than we did here in Jersey. Quite why the NI Government (and IOM as well) are so reluctant (or scared?) to implement this scheme is a mystery to me. Sarah's Law is not the be-all and end-all in protecting children, but is one way that parents can protect their children . I hope that David Ford will one day realise this, and get this introduced in NI. Thankfully not all people are as negative as Suzanne Breen is (author of this article), the vast majority are, like me, fully supportive of this scheme.

 

For more information, please read these comprehensive guidelines on Sarah's Law

 

 

 





Ann Coffey MP Rids Legislation of AVP - Will the Media Follow Suit?



MP Ann Coffey

 

Excellent news.

 

Will the media now follow suit & stop their never-ending AVP?

 

If I get any replies, will keep this post updated (sent to all the major media outlets).

 

 

"Good evening all,

 

You are probably aware, that last week Ann Coffey MP was successful last week, in her campaign to remove the term "Child Prostitute" from all legislation in the UK (see link in subject - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/victory-mps-campaign-rid-laws-8637437).

 

Also, as tweeted, she has also stated that the term "Child Pornography" is also to be banished from any legislation.

 

I realise, that I have on numerous occasions, e-mailed all the UK national newspapers to both complain when they have used such terms and also to request that they stop using them, however it has always been somewhat difficult to put my case across when they are used in legislation (although The Sun, following the regular columns by Dr Sara Payne & Shy Keenan stopped using "Child Porn" a couple of years ago, and The Guardian amended their style guide a few years ago following an earlier e-mail from myself, and no longer use the term "Child Porn").

 

Now that MP Ann Coffey has been successful, and these prejudicial terms are finally being removed from legislation, I have one last plea.

 

Please could you, like the Sun & Guardian, pledge to stop using these  two terms, namely "Child Porn / Child Pornography", and "Child Prostitute" in any reporting, going forward. These are two awful phrases, which both force the onus onto the Child (i.e. "child prostitute", which indicates the child prostituting themselves as opposed to a "prostituted child", which places the onus squarely on the offender), and describe disgusting crimes in paedophile-friendly speak (only someone sexually attracted to children would refer to images of child abuse / child exploitation as any sort of "pornography", the rest of the populace would see them as images of child abuse - visual evidence of sexual exploitation or crimes against a child).

 

 As I have said, I have asked this of you numerous time previously with very little positive responses, however with this soon to be change in legislation, this is the perfect time for the major UK media outlets to follow Ann Coffey's lead and show that they have at least some understanding of the power of language, and for them to amend their style guides to remove both these terms once and for all. I know there are lots more awful terms used when describing child abuse, but these are the main two.

 

http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-media-and-child-porn.html

 

http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/media-and-legal-avp-anti-victim.html

 

If you disagree, please could you let me know why you disagree - if you agree, it would be a huge step forward for you and it would be great to get acknowledgement of this from yourselves.

 

Many thanks"

 

I have no doubt, that I will receive very few (if any) replies. The national media have a habit of not responding (I will re-email this next week), unlike local media throughout the UK who are more than willing to discuss (good or bad).

 

But we keep on trying. One day it will "click".

The ULS (Unduly Lenient Sentences) Scheme - an Update

In previous posts I have explained how the ULS scheme works in the UK, and how any member of the public can appeal against sentences that appear "unduly lenient", providing the conditions are met (sentence was passed down in a Crown Court, and within 28 days of sentencing). In my previous posts I have indicated the e-mail addresses for England and Scotland, as I understood at the time.

However it appears that Scotland does not have the same sort of scheme as England.

In January, there was a story of a paedophile, in Scotland, who molested a nine year old girl in her bed with her six year old brother in a bed next to her. His "punishment" (if that is what it can be called) was 200 hours Community Service over a period of nine months.

The old cliché "couldn't make it up" comes to mind.

So, this was a case that I appealed against, in the usual way. I have to admit, I have not appealed against many Scottish cases, most of the ones I have done are for English cases.

Yesterday I found out, by return e-mail, that for sentences passed down in Scotland the public cannot make a "ULS" appeal (the first time that I have been told of this - normally the e-mails I receive back are acknowledgements and I don't hear anything else).

It seems that the only people that can appeal, are the offenders (if they consider the sentence to be too severe), and  the COPFS (Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service) if they consider sentences to be too lenient.

"Thank you for your email dated 10 January 2015 regarding a sentence that was imposed on an offender for child abuse.  Your email has been passed to the Criminal Law and Licensing Division and I have been asked to reply.
I wish to reassure you that the Scottish Government deplores sexual and physical abuse.  These deplorable crimes, which can have a devastating effect on victims and their families, are unacceptable and will not be tolerated and our communities must be protected from sex offenders.  We are working with all relevant agencies to ensure that children, young people and adults are given the best possible protection from harm. 
I have noted your comments regarding the sentence that was imposed.  I must advise you that the Scottish Ministers cannot offer a view on sentences imposed in individual cases.  The independence of the judiciary is an essential pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial in any modern civilised country.  That is why section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 provides that Scottish Ministers must not seek to influence judicial decisions.  Therefore, you will understand why the Scottish Government will not offer a specific view on any individual sentencing decision made by our courts. 
It is the case that judges are best placed to decide on an appropriate sentence for each offender before them as they hear all the facts and circumstances of a case before they then make their sentencing decisions within the overall legal framework provided by Parliament.   If the judge considers an offence, based on all the facts of the particular case, merits a tough and lengthy custodial sentence, then this Government fully supports that. 
In relation to your request that an appeal be lodged against the sentence, it may be helpful if I explain more about appeals process within the justice system in Scotland.  Anyone who is convicted of a crime in Scotland can appeal against the sentence if they consider it is too severe.  Equally, the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can appeal against a sentence if they feel it is unduly lenient.  Crown Counsel will give careful consideration as to whether a sentence was unduly lenient or if the sentence imposed is within the range available to the judge in the exercise of their normal judicial discretion.  The decision to appeal against a sentence is a decision for the independent COPFS to make and, as with judicial decisions, the Scottish Government cannot intervene in such decisions.  Where COPFS appeal against a sentence as being unduly lenient, it is for the court to decide whether the appeal is successful.".

So, if there are any "couldn't make this shit up" decisions in Scotland, not much us the plebs can do. Shame, there have been many successful appeals in England, why don't the Scottish Government have a similar scheme.

Ray Teret, Double Standards & FOI's - an Update

Dear Mr Bougeard

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

I refer to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 22 December 2014.

The FOI Act gives you the right to know whether we hold the information you want and to have it communicated to you, subject to any exemptions which may apply. It is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public. 

In your request you referred to the sentencing remarks relating to Ray Teret’s conviction, who was recently sentenced to 25 years for child abuse charges.  You asked the following questions below and I have supplied our answer in bold font next to each question:

 

Please could you let me know: 

 

1)   Was the charge of "intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16" considered to begin with? (Yes or No) Yes

2)   Due to the length of time between the crime and disclosure, was the charge amended to "indecent assault" to guarantee a conviction? (Yes or No) No

3)   If question 1) was "No", why was it No? N/A

4) Ray Teret was cleared of various other sexual offences in relation to six other complainants - a)  did any of these relate to the crime "intercourse with girl between 13 and 15", No 

and b) was he cleared because of the 12 month timescale (Yes or No to 'a' and 'b' ) No

I trust this information assists.

 

Needless to say, one further FOI has been submitted in relation to questions and answers one and two.

 

More to follow when I receive an update.

 

In the meantime, please keep signing & sharing my petition

Double Standards, Ray Teret, Indecent Assault and Bending the Rules

 

 

 

On December 11 2014, Ray Teret was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for his catalogue of crimes against girls. A sentence well justified.

 

The sentencing remarks by Mr Justice Baker are interesting reading, when comparing them against the petition I started last year.

 

Reading through them, it is apparent that double standards have been applied in this case, when compared to other cases which have involved the same crime.

 

According to Justice Baker here , five out of the eleven victims, aged between thirteen and fifteen "consented" to their abuse (yes I know, AoC is sixteen and to imply consent does not make sense).

 

The paragraphs that interest me in Justice Baker's comments are below, and I have highlighted the "consensual" crimes:

 

"The jury convicted you of having sexually abused 11 different girls during this period
of time, 6 of whom you raped and 5 of whom were, as I have said, so awed by your
celebrity status that they consented to having sexual intercourse with you. Some of
those you raped were forcibly penetrated by you, causing them acute pain and distress,
whilst you ejaculated inside them. However it is clear that all of these girls were used
by you for your own sexual gratification, which in some cases was enhanced by you
encouraging them to masturbate you both manually and orally. In my judgement it is
no mere coincidence that each of these girls was between 13 – 15 years of age when
you abused them in this manner, as I am sure that, despite your protestations to the
contrary, you have a sexual interest in girls of that age."

 

"At the time of the commission of the offences of indecent assault the maximum
sentence for such offences was 2 years’ custody. This court remains bound by that
restriction. Thus on counts 1, 14, 25 31 and 35 there will be sentences of 18 months’
imprisonment, and on counts 6, 8, 18, 22, 23 and 24 there will be sentences of 12
months’ imprisonment. However on each of the convictions for rape, namely counts
5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 27 there will be sentences of 25 years’ imprisonment. All of
those sentences will run concurrently with each other making a total custodial sentence
of 25 years."

 

I say "Interesting" deliberately, because as we know, as detailed in my petition here, and previous posts, the crime of "Intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16" (note "intercourse", not "rape -, thus implying ostensible consent), carried with it a disclosure timescale of 12 months. Both the MoJ and CPS have over the last few months, stuck to their guns and stated repeatedly to me that in the UK, crimes cannot be "retroactively" amended and therefore any victim of this crime, who has disclosed after the 12 months have passed (ie anyone since 2005, as this timescale was removed in 2004) it is a matter of "tough luck".

 

Furthermore, the crime cannot be changed to "indecent assault", as detailed here ("A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The House of Lords has ruled that a charge of indecent assault cannot be used to bypass the time limit. See R v J [2004] UKHL 42").

 

So, the question is, how have potentially hundreds of victims been so catastrophically failed by the "injustice system", but the Law can seemingly be bent for a high profile case such as this?

 

Was Justice Baker unaware of the time limit?

 

Did Justice Baker deliberately change the crime to "Indecent Assault" from the start, thus eliminating the 12 months?

 

Or, more likely (in my opinion), did the rules get "bent" as this, being Saville related, there had to be a desirable outcome, whatever the path of getting it?

 

Whatever the reason is, this is a totally unacceptable flouting of the Law to fit the crime, and this makes it ten times worse for all the victims of the same crime, who have been so badly let down.

 

 



Timescales and Sexual Offences, an Update

The petition that I started here has now been going for about a month and a half, and now has nearly 400 signatures.

 

Hopefully all who have read my blog have signed it - if not WHY? - sign it now, it only takes a minute!

 

I have managed to find out the history of this disclosure timescale, and include this below.

 

A week or so ago, I had a reply from Mr Chown, head of Criminal Procedure at the Ministry of Justice, outlining where this 12 month limit originated. I will reproduce part of his e-mail below and elaborate a bit on this after:

 

"The time limit was of long standing, dating back to 1885; as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained in the House of Lords case of R v J, it was originally shorter:

“Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 provided that no prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16) should be commenced more than three months after the commission of the offence. Section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 increased the time limit to six months. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922 increased the period to nine months. Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928 made a further increase to 12 months. That provision was consolidated in the 1956 Act.”

 

The time limit was finally abolished when the 1956 Act was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but only prospectively, with effect from the date when that Act was brought into force in 2004.  In so legislating, Parliament followed the usual principle of non-retroactivity; Lord Steyn’s speech in R v J simply observed without further comment that “The change in the law is, of course, not of retrospective effect”.  Although retrospective removal of the time limit would not amount to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, it is clear that the bar to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural pre-conditions for the bringing of charges against an individual"

 

So, this goes back over 100 years to 1885!!

 

The original Law from 1885 itself an be read here and here (section 5) , and the bit that applies to this is "Provided also, that no prosecution shall de commenced for an offence under sub section one of this section more than 3 months after the commission of this offence".

 

I won't make this post too long, however, I will include a link that does explain further the reasons behind the original 3 month limit, and the reasons for raising it to 12 months. This link can be read here (it is rather long though) and includes the following 2 items:

 

"it was thought then that a girl who fell pregnant, and thus was unquestionably the victim of an offence, was so likely to name the wrong man that the accused needed the exceptional protection of a very short time limit, one which elapsed before her pregnancy had become obvious or even known" (this for the reasons of having the 3 month original timescale),

 

and

 

"it cannot long have been the supposed need to identify a perpetrator before a pregnancy became apparent, because the time limit was soon raised, first to six months by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904, then to nine months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922, and finally to 12 months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928. It was precisely because a pregnancy or childbirth might reveal the offence that the limit was raised. The reasons given for having any limit at all - loss of witnesses and the difficulties of proof - might equally apply to many other offences. But complainants in sexual offences were then still regarded with much more suspicion than other complainants, and so abolition may have been thought too radical to contemplate. However, it is hard to discern any coherent rationale after 1922, because the 1922 Act also provided that consent would no longer be a defence to an indecent assault upon a child or young person under the age of 16. Thus most forms of sexual activity with a girl under 16 became a criminal offence whether or not she consented, but no time limit was prescribed." for the raising of this limit.

 

 

What can be done to remove the 12 months for victims of this crime now disclosing abuse?

I will cover this soon in another posting.

 

Until then, please sign if you haven't yet done so, and please keep sharing and encouraging others to do so - the link is HERE this needs to be removed for the sake of "Sarah", "Sylvie" and "Jane", and all other victims of this crime who have been, and will be denied justice. 

Petition - a small update

Up to date petition is here - the petition - newly created on Change.org so that more people can sign, it isn't restricted to UK people, and (as far as I know) each signature will generate an e-mail to MoJ.

 

Please get signing & sharing.

 

Obviously I am not relying purely on a petition to highlight and to try to change this, I have also contacted various UK media a few times, however unfortunately they too seem disinterested in this as a story. There have been a couple of smaller regional papers who I have spoken to who have been interested in taking this up, however only if there were "local victims of this injustice in their area". Back to the drawing board then.

 

There are 17 MPs in "Sarah's" county, and they have all been e-mailed together with CPS.

 

Not one has replied.

 

Not surprisingly, the CPS could not assist me either. Their reply (at least I got one out of the 18 sent), partly reproduced below, passed the onus squarely onto MoJ, (which does make sense I suppose).

 

"It may assist if I explain the role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).  The CPS is responsible for reviewing and, where appropriate, prosecuting most criminal cases in England and Wales following an investigation by the police. 

 

I note that your query relates to the SOA 1956 and the sentencing guidelines.  These fall within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, who would be best placed to answer your concerns"

 

So MoJ, what of them? Obviously I have contacted them as well. Amongst the questions I have asked them are these below:

 

1) When these guidelines were drawn up, how was this timescale thought up?

2) Who in particular decided that this should be added as a clause to the sentencing guidelines?

3) Who benefits from this 12 month timescale (certainly not any victim of this crime)

4) How can this be taken forward for "Sarah" and any future victims so that they can get justice and closure to their abuse?

 

Their response to me has answered none of these questions, and has in a nutshell said "tough shit, nothing we are going to do". Part of their response is detailed below:

 

"I regret I am unable to comment on individual cases such as the one you highlighted in your e-mail. However, I can confirm that we have no plans to retrospectively amend the criminal law enabling a prosecution to be brought in a case that pre-dates the commencement of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the offence of intercourse with a girl between the age of thirteen and sixteen (under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) where the allegation was made more than twelve months after the offence charged. 

The general legal position in English law is that a person can only be guilty of a criminal offence according to the law as it was at the time when the offence was committed.  Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights also prohibits the retroactive application of criminal offences so as to penalise conduct which was not criminal conduct at the time when the act or omission occurred. This prohibits not only the creation of retroactive offences by legislation but also the retroactive application of offences through development of the common law." 

 

So there we have it. Not going to give up on this, for "Sarah", for any other victims who are in the same situation, or for any more cases which come up in the future, however the options I have to challenge this are dwindling away. There must be something that can be done? I will need to have a rethink on what to do next, and keep sharing the petition & "Sarah's" story & hope to get somewhere near to the required amount of signatures.

 

Hopefully readers in the UK and CI's that have read my previous post have already signed this. If not, the link is HERE

 

Thank you very much.

Groomed for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to do anything.

My dad’s pal groomed me for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to touch him

 

 

 

 

 

"A woman who was 13 when she was groomed and sexually abused by a man twice her age had her case dropped because a controversial legal ­loophole allowed her attacker to go free.

Today, she tells her harrowing story of how the six-month relationship “ruined her life”.

The woman’s happy family life was destroyed and she was brought up in care, passed around by social services.

But when the victim realised she was abused and plucked up the courage to seek justice against the man she once trusted, she was told by the Crown Prosecution Service he could not be charged.

A letter from a senior prosecutor, seen by the Mirror, states: “If the law was different, I would have charged [Mr X] with having unlawful sexual intercourse.”

Sexual offence laws were changed in 2004 so an adult who had sex with a child under 16 could be ­prosecuted with no time limit attached.

But charges cannot be brought against anyone for “consensual” sex with a child under 16 if it happened before 2004 and no complaint is made within a year."

 

Appalling.

 

Yet another failing of victims, by an out of date law that makes no sense at all.

 

Firstly children cannot consent - that is why we have an age of consent (quite obvious really to the majority of the population).

 

Secondly, what idiot drew up this previous Law, that included a "one year timescale" to report "ostensible" consent for 13 to 15 years old? Who could consider that there would be any benefit in doing this at the time? What about victims who didn't disclose until after a year after "ostensibly" consenting to being groomed and abused by an adult?

 

Thirdly, what happens now? Another way to stop victims coming forward, if they think their abuser may argue this "consent", therefore making their disclosures "null and void"

 

What is the point of reporting abuse that happened prior to 2004, if this is the end result?

 

According to the Mirror article, "It is thought to have allowed hundreds of Britain’s worst abusers to walk free as the police are left powerless to charge them". Is this good enough? Not in the slightest. As I said firstly, Appalling!

 

Proof of this Law is in the enclosed two links. In this link here the section that refers to this offence is article 6 "Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen.". Sentencing guidelines relating to this can be found here, and this states "A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence".

 

As-such, I have created a petition on direct.gov to get this one year timescale removed for any future victims that come forward and disclose this type of grooming & rape. Why should victims of this crime, have their cases thrown out because of this unnecessary loophole? Why should some victims be allowed their day in court, and to see their suffering and abuse be dealt with (and hopefully with fair justice), whilst others have their abuse dismissed because of this unjust loophole from 10 years ago?

 

Please sign this and share it - 100,000 sigs needed before this can be considered for debate in the House of Commons - end date 10 June 2015. Thank you.

 

Petition

 

Adam Hulin, Undue Leniency & No Justice.

Headley man, 19, plied 12 year old with vodka before committing sex acts

 

 

Adam Hulin

 

"A TEENAGER plied a 12-year-old girl with vodka so he could sexually assault her on the back seat of his car, a court heard. Adam Hulin, of Hurst Lane, Headley, appeared for trial at Guildford Crown Court this week, accused of raping the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in December 2012. The 19-year-old admitted driving the alleged victim to several locations in Bookham and performing sex acts with her, but denied having sexual intercourse and said he believed her to be aged 16. Opening the case for the prosecution on Monday, Alan Gardner said: "In the middle of 2012, Hulin added the girl as a friend on social media site Facebook. "During conversations they had on Facebook, he asked what school year she was in and, after answering she was in Year 7, his response was 'cute'. It is the prosecution's case that Hulin was well aware of her age."

 

Headley Man sentenced to community order after admitting sex acts with 12 year old girl

 

"A MAN has been sentenced to a community order for performing sexual acts with a 12-year-old girl.

Adam Hulin of Hurst Lane, Headley, avoided prison despite admitting charges of oral rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration. In addition to the 12-month community order handed down at Guildford Crown Court on Wednesday (April 23), the 19-year-old was ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work and attend six sessions on his attitude towards sexual encounters. A custodial term is within the sentencing council's guidelines for the offences he committed."

 

"He was found neither guilty or not guilty of this charge, after the jury was discharged and the judge heard evidence alone in what is known as a Newton hearing. During this hearing the judge accepted Hulin’s defence that at the time of the encounter he believed the girl was 16. It was decided the rape charge would remain on file. Mitigating at the sentencing hearing, Richard McConaghy said Hulin had engaged in what he had believed was “what most people would ordinarily define as regular sexual activity”. He added: “This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law. “It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all.”

 

No Sex Offenders treatment programme for Adam Hulin

 

"Convicted oral child rapist Adam Hulin will not take part in any sex offenders’ treatment programme it has emerged - even though sentencing guidelines say this should happen when a judge decides not to impose a jail  term. Hulin, 19, of Hookwood Cottages, in Hurst Lane, Headley, was given 100 hours of community service, a £60 victim surcharge and the requirement to attend six community reintegration sessions after pleading guilty to oral rape and sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl in Bookham in December 2012. The talented runner was only put on the Sex Offenders' Register for five years after he was sentenced by the judge Recorder George Lawson-Rogers QC at Guildford Crown Court last month. Last week, the Solicitor General Oliver Heald QC MP decided that the sentence handed to Hulin would not be reviewed - despite calls from the victim’s family and others who believed it was unduly lenient."

 

You seriously couldn't make this up. 

 

Knew she was about 12 by the fact he asked her what year she was in (year 7 = first year at secondary school). Yet somehow the judge was seemingly duped into believing that he believed she was 16! How does that work? There is more than a little difference between a 12 year old child & a 16 year old teenager - surely no-one could ever fall for that? Maybe a 14 or 15 year old, but a 12 year old?  

 

And what of the comments made by Barrister Richard McConaghy?

 

"This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law. “It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all.”

 

Am I missing something blindingly obvious here, or am I being incredibly stupid in assuming that by Law, the age of consent in the UK is 16, not 13? Children of 12 / 13 cannot consent. New guidelines published this year, as explained here include the following excert:

 

"The guideline makes it clear that victims are not responsible for what has happened to them. This is particularly emphasised in relation to offences committed against children. In the previous guideline there were child sex offences labelled as involving ‘ostensible consent’ – that is, where a child over 13 has apparently agreed to sexual activity. The Council believes that this is the wrong way of looking at these offences as children do not consent to their own abuse. The new guideline therefore looks more at the offender’s actions and behaviour towards the victim" So again, what is this Barrister going on about?

 

Unfortunately, appeals to the AG as Unduly lenient (yes I did appeal this case) where the AG decides not to review, cannot be re-appealed. It seems then, that for this "talented athlete" (not that this has anything to do with these offences), for sexually assaulting and orally raping a 12 year old child after plying her with vodka, a sentence of 100 hours community service, a £60 victim surcharge and 6 community reintegration sessions (which are NOT designed for sexual offences) is an appropriate sentence! Believe it or not. British Justice at its best again.

Third Time Lucky for "GPS Monitoring" of Sex Offenders?

Sex offenders to face compulsory lie detector tests to stop them breaching parole 

 

"Sex offenders could be forced to take lie detector tests when they are freed from jail to prove they pose no risk.

Probation officers have begun rigorous training to become lie detector examiners, under new plans by the Ministry of Justice.

Around 1,000 serious offenders released into the community will be put under stringent tests to ensure they are sticking to their licence conditions.

Justice Minister Jeremy Wright claims the move will give Britain one of the world's toughest approaches to Freed sex offenders.

The compulsory lie detector tests are the latest idea to tighten up controls on sex offenders, which will also see their every movement tracked by satellite tags, when the technology is available, the Ministry of Justice said."

 

Hang on, haven't we been here before? 

 

Paedophiles will be forced to wear GPS tags to track their movements after release from prison, says Justice minister 

 

"Convicted child abusers will be forced to wear tracking devices upon their release, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has promised.

Paedophiles will be equipped with GPS ankle tags so police can track their whereabouts after they have served their prison sentence.

The new scheme will be rolled out across Britain early next year, the Ministry of Justice confirmed today." (ie Spring 2013.... hmmm what happened then?)

 

These ideas are well behind the times of course, as this news item from 2003 shows - 

 

Home Office considers tracking sex offenders

 

"The Home Office is considering using tracking technology to monitor sex offenders, BBC Newsnight has learnt. As public pressure mounts on the Government to find new ways of dealing with child abusers, a report for the programme revealed that ministers are considering the possibility of using technology to electronically track convicted child abusers every minute of the day.

Newsnight gained exclusive access to one of a number of satellite tracking systems being considered by the Home Office Electronic Monitoring Unit, which could follow paedophiles wherever they go.

The Sky Guardian system is the culmination of years of work by Shy Keenan, a victim of child sex abuse.

Speaking to the programme she said: "I spoke to one of the child molesters. I asked him straight, 'what kind of treatment would stop you?', and his response to me was, 'I like molesting children, it's great. I love doing it. The only thing that would actually stop me would be if you cellotaped a policeman and a probation officer to my arse'.

"And as blunt and straight as that was, it sat with me for ages."               

The Sky Guardian system Keenan created with Clive Crosby and the satellite tracking company Tracker involves a tag attached to the offender's ankle and a mobile phone that alarms if he fails to carry it with him.

He can be tracked 24 hours a day via a computer at a monitoring centre and certain areas like schools or playgrounds can be 'geo-fenced'.       

If the offender approaches these areas he can be contacted directly by a probation or police office on an automatic voice channel on the phone."

 

and this one from 2006

 

a 24-hour, state-of-the-art surveillance tagging system for paedophiles.

 

"According to Keenan, who has developed the satellite tracking system with firm Sky Guardian, the Home Office is enthusiastic about conducting trials for the scheme. Under the system - dubbed SG-Rom (Sky Guardian Remote Offender Management) - paedophiles would wear an almost indestructible bracelet and be given a mobile phone fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology so police can constantly track the offender and pinpoint their exact location in the UK.

On the phone there is a "panic button" which offenders can press, linking them to trained counsellors if they are feeling vulnerable or believe they are in danger of re-offending.

If there are concerns about an offender's whereabouts, they can also be contacted via the mobile phone.

The location of schools can be "geo-fenced", meaning that an alert would be sent to the police if an offender approached. Police would be called immediately if the mobile phone and tag were separated."

 

Personally, I prefer the GPS device in the last two articles -"Phoenix R.O.M. as it was known (Remote Offender Management). Not only the device itself, but the added extra's such as a "talk-down" option, the alerts & mobile devices.

 

Why was this not taken seriously & implemented by the Government at the time, between 2002 and 2006, it really should have been!!

 

Will it be third time lucky?

 

Will the MoJ include, as part of this, the options that Phoenix ROM had?

AVP and Rape

Extend the definition of rape to include female offenders

 

 

"Currently as it stands the legal definition for rape is:

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape in its first section, which reads:

“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— 

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, 

(b) B does not consent to the penetration.."

The current definition means that sex without consent does not always constitute rape. When a woman forces another person into sex she is not charged with rape which goes against rape crisis campaigns which state "no consent is rape"."

 

 

The above link is a newly created petition created by "Smash Devon" - please sign and share.

 

There seem to be many similar, but at the same time, different meanings to the term "rape", depending where you look up the meaning of the word. A couple of examples are below:

 

Dictionary.Reference.com states "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

Oxford Dictionary refers to rape as "A crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will". 

 

So, AVP, where does this come in?

 

In UK Law, as defined by the SoA 2003 as stated above, is gender specific, ie "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis" Under UK Law therefore, only a male can commit the offence of rape on either gender. If a female commits the offense of forcing another person into sex, it is either defined by law as Assault by penetration (even though, again, the SoA 2003 starts their definition with He), or Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (again with the He). By having separate distinction between genders, and by having legislation named as this, it minimises the offense committed by a female from Rape to a more general type of "Sexual Assault".

 

CPS Guidelines have both offenses ("Rape" and "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which as stated in this link is "a female equivalent of the offence of rape") as Indictable Only offenses, both which carry a maximum of Life Imprisonment, so why the difference in the naming of the offence?

 

Having the crime of rape described in this way, (ie can only be committed by a male), is prejudicial to any victim that has been raped by a female perpetrator. Having the crime that has been committed against them lumped together with any other type of "sexual assault" minimises the seriousness of the crime and this needs to change.

 

If both the type of offense is the same (indictable only), and the punishment for offenders supposedly being the same (maximum of life), where is the issue with having the one offense of rape which covers both genders of offender?

 

Having a quick search online, brought up this story from 2012 from the USA, which includes "a significant expansion of the FBI’s definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.", which shows that this can be done.

 

Rape is rape, rape should legally mean one person (no matter what gender) forcing another person (no matter what gender) into sex. The end result is the same for victims - no difference - so the crime should be the same. Until it is, victims of female rapists will always have the crime committed against them trivialised and society will always view this as a lesser crime.

 

And, if you haven't yet, please sign the petition at the top.

Child Prostitutes - Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

Sarah Champion MP

 

Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

 

"A South Yorkshire MP is celebrating after ministers agreed to consider removing the term ‘child prostitutes’ from Government legislation concerning victims of child sexual exploitation.

Sarah Champion, who represents Rotherham, has been lobbying for the removal of the terminology since her involvement in a major study into the sexual exploitation of children by children’s charity Barnardo’s.

The work was commissioned after it emerged that victims in Rotherham had been failed by the authorities for years, with leaked reports revealing a lack of action and prosecutions of culprits despite allegations of abuse and of gangs of men grooming vulnerable youngsters for sex.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms Champion urged ministers to take action and to remove archaic references to ‘child prostitutes’ from British law.

“There are currently 16 pieces of legislation that use the term ‘child prostitute’,” the Labour MP said.

“I have spoken to young people who have been victims of child sexual exploitation, and they say the expression makes them feel dirty and complicit.”

Home Affairs Minister Norman Baker said he was ‘very sympathetic’ to proposals recommended in the Barnardo’s report published last month.

He praised Ms Champion’s work and said he will consider how best to alter existing legislation.

“I am very sympathetic to that suggestion,” he said.

“Children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They are victims.

“We will consider references in all legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.”"

 

Fantastic news!

 

Regular readers will know that amongst other things, I have highlighted some of the appalling language both used in the media and in UK Legislation when it comes to describing sexual crimes committed against children. However whilst I have had success in the last few years in getting (some of) the media to see the offense they cause to victims, and the way in which they trivialise these crimes, so far I have had less success with regards to getting legislation changed.

 

Until March, it has been a case of banging a head against a brick wall - I have lost count of the amount of e-mails that have been sent from person to person to various departments & back again, just to get a small amount of wording changed in a few small pieces of legislation!! In March however I did manage to get contact with a Labour MP (not Sarah in the above article) who would help me take this forward.

 

Obviously as well as getting this particular part of wording changed (Child Prostitutes), it would be even better to at the same time get the rest changed (Children and Pornography), so I will be contacting both to see if this is something that can be achieved. With so much news over the last couple of year, being on child abuse and (supposedly) "victims rights", hopefully this is something that can once and for all be taken seriously, looked into and amended accordingly.