[Ammi]

A paedophile who avoided jail after a judge and prosecutor described his 13-year-old victim as "predatory" in court could have his sentence reviewed.

Neil Wilson, 41, was handed an eight-month suspended sentence and walked free from court on Monday.

But the case has prompted an outcry from children's charities and his sentence is now being examined by the Attorney General's office.

It will decide whether it should ask the Court of Appeal to consider whether the punishment was unduly lenient.

Prosecutor Robert Colover reportedly told Snaresbrook Crown Court in London: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

Passing sentence, Judge Nigel Peters then said he had taken into account that the girl looked and behaved "a little bit older" than she was.

"The girl was predatory and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension," he said

Wilson, now living in York, had watched the girl strip out of her school uniform at his home in Romford, Essex, before she performed a sex act on him.

He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Judge Peters told Wilson: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison."

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said the language used by its prosecutor was "inappropriate".

A spokesman said: "The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts."

More than 4,000 people have already signed a petition set up by a campaigner working on behalf of sex abuse victims calling for a review.

She wrote on the Change.org website: "I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I could have been that 13-year-old girl who the judge and prosecutor described as 'predatory'.

"I have seen first-hand how this kind of victim-blaming prevents women from coming forward and protects men who commit these crimes."

The NSPCC warned that the case was part of a wider pattern about how child sex abuse cases are treated in the courts.

Alan Wardle, head of corporate affairs, said: "It was quite clear in the case the predator was the man who was in the dock, not a 13-year-old child, and it is quite clear that a 13-year-old child cannot be complicit in her own abuse.

"Making sure that judges and barristers in all these cases are properly trained and understand the nature of child sexual abuse and how children are groomed in these sort of cases is important."

A spokesman for Barnardo's added: "It is plain wrong to imply in any way that the experiences of sexually exploited children are something they bring on themselves."

Victim Support's chief executive Javed Khan said: "Victims of sexual abuse should be praised for their bravery in coming forward, not censured and have their credibility called into question - least of all by the prosecution.

"It is traumatic enough for anyone who is brought to court to face their abuser, but particularly so when this is a young vulnerable person. It is completely unacceptable for victims to be blamed in any way for the abuse they have suffered."

Caroline Criado-Perez, who received rape threats following her calls for Jane Austen to be the face on the £10 bank note, called the judge's decision "completely appalling".

She told Sky News: "It's really worrying that we're in the 21st century and we're still suggesting victims can be complicit in their abuse which is basically what calling a 13-year-old child a sexually predator is.

"I don't think you can ever call a child a sexual predator because they are a child. They are below the age of consent. We have laws specifically because of this kind of thing so that you can't say a child is responsible for her abuse.

"This adds to the horror that has happened to her. She has been abused and now we are blaming her for it. It's just unconscionable."

The Attorney General said a decision on whether the case is referred to the Court of Appeal will be made within 28 days.

[Marc]

Awkward..

[Niamh.]

wow, that's pretty shocking and it happened in England too, I was really surprised by that, I was expecting it to be a country that's more behind the times when it comes to womens rights. That judge needs sacking

[Z]

Call me cynical, but why are all these people so convinced that the judge is in the wrong here? He was in charge of the full facts, none of us were. If it was his judgment that the girl was sexually mature and was not in fact 'abused' in the traditional sense of the word then surely that ought to count for something? I was still a kid when I was 13 but my best friend hit puberty when he was 11 and he was definitely aware of it. Not every 13 year old is still a child, is my point, and while I think it's wrong that a 40-something year old man was taking advantage of her, some of the comments made in that article imply that the judge was being sexist or something. Do we even know if the girl herself came forward or if she was 'found out' by an adult (presumably a parent) and it was taken forward thusly?

A 15 year old girl I know was having regular sex with her 19 year old boyfriend, her parents found out and they took him to court and he was put on the register. Absolutely no one who knew her would have said she was being taken advantage of - they were both consenting and at the time were in a loving relationship. The law is there for a reason obviously but I think it's important that judges take into account the people involved in a case and don't just say "the law says you have to be this age so that is my judgment."

Obviously the judge could be guilty of the things people are accusing him of, but I'm not convinced that this is as outrageous as the press are spinning it to be.

Statutory rape is statutory rape. Anyone having sex with a girl under 16 is legally an "abuser". Even a 15 yr old boy having sex with a 15yr old girl is a sex offender.

As an adult, you have to be expected to reject the advances of a child.

[Niamh.]

Really Greg? I have a 13 year old daughter and I don't care what the circumstances were, a 41 year old man having sex with a 13 year old child is always wrong. And a judge putting any type of blame on the child is 100% wrong.

[Ammi]

..I'm sure a 13yr old can be aware of their sexuality but in a very immature way and I wouldn't think they would be aware of potential health issues of being sexually active at that age either, I really don't care if she stripped naked and flung herself upon him, she wasn't slightly underage, she was 3 years underage and this wasn't a boyfriend who wasn't much older and maybe equally emotionally immature, it was a 41yr old man who was very responsible in his actions...

[Z]

I'm not doubting that a crime was committed but I'm a bit sceptical of the people calling the judge out on 'blaming' the girl. He presided over the case, he clearly felt that the victim must have at least been a willing participant to have said such a thing. That doesn't absolve the man of any guilt; he still committed a crime, but surely there's a difference between someone who takes a 13 year old girl to their home and abuses her against her will and someone who takes a 13 year old girl home for her to perform a strip tease and perform a sex act on him? Those sound like two completely different scenarios to me and that's presumably why it received a different type of sentencing. If she's acting older than her age, as is mentioned, then it's different to an immature 13 year old girl.

[Ammi]

..I think it was the prosecutor who accused of being a 'sex predator' and the judge accepted it but it isn't really that different at all because to me that's a bit like saying, if she maybe had been watching a movie that wasn't appropriate or something and decided she would 'act like a grown up' and strip etc...so that would be ok for the 41yr old to participate..?..

EDIT:..also, what message is this sending out to paedophiles...

Originally Posted by Zee

I'm not doubting that a crime was committed but I'm a bit sceptical of the people calling the judge out on 'blaming' the girl. He presided over the case, he clearly felt that the victim must have at least been a willing participant to have said such a thing. That doesn't absolve the man of any guilt; he still committed a crime, but surely there's a difference between someone who takes a 13 year old girl to their home and abuses her against her will and someone who takes a 13 year old girl home for her to perform a strip tease and perform a sex act on him? Those sound like two completely different scenarios to me and that's presumably why it received a different type of sentencing. If she's acting older than her age, as is mentioned, then it's different to an immature 13 year old girl.

Why would a 41yr old take a 13yr old back to his house to begin with? It's not an appropriate relationship to be engaging in.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Why would a 41yr old take a 13yr old back to his house to begin with? It's not an appropriate relationship to be engaging in.

Exactly.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think it was the prosecutor who accused of being a 'sex predator' and the judge accepted it but it isn't really that different at all because to me that's a bit like saying, if she maybe had been watching a movie that wasn't appropriate or something and decided she would 'act like a grown up' and strip etc...so that would be ok for the 41yr old to participate..?..

EDIT:..also, what message is this sending out to paedophiles...

It's definitely not okay for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old. There is a difference between an unwilling victim and a willing person being victimised, though, in my opinion. People are projecting a personality onto this girl when absolutely no indication was given as to whether or not she herself felt abused - yes it has gone to court, but only because the girl told a friend about it. There's no indication to say that she told a friend because she was upset or she told a friend because she was bragging. People are saying that the poor girl is reliving her abuse etc... but what if the girl doesn't see it as abuse?

[Livia]

As far as I can see the judge didn't call the girl a "sexual predator", he said she was "predatory". He also said she looked older than she was and that she was "sexually experienced". So, where do her parents figure in all this? When I was 13 my parents knew where I was every single minute of the day.

You can't live in a society where young girls are sexualised at an early age and then expect them to not to be sexual. Some 13 year olds are extremely provocative and many are already sexually active. Now I am not for one minute saying that she deserved to be abused, not at all. But if you're expecting a 13 year old to be all ankle socks and Barbie dolls, go and stand outside a school disco when it's kicking out and have a look at the children dressed up like streetwalkers.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Livia

As far as I can see the judge didn't call the girl a "sexual predator", he said she was "predatory". He also said she looked older than she was and that she was "sexually experienced". So, where do her parents figure in all this? When I was 13 my parents knew where I was every single minute of the day.

You can't live in a society where young girls are sexualised at an early age and then expect them to not to be sexual. Some 13 year olds are extremely provocative and many are already sexually active. Now I am not for one minute saying that she deserved to be abused, not at all. But if you're expecting a 13 year old to be all ankle socks and Barbie dolls, go and stand ourside a school disco when it's kicking out and have a look at the children dressed up like streetwalkers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see the potential flip side to the coin... nobody is condoning what the man did - what he did was categorically wrong; but we know nothing about the 13 year old girl beyond what the barrister said and the judge accepted.

We don't need to know anything about the girl, though, surely? Isn't this all about the male. Not sure why it would matter whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground.

It's not her responsibility in this instance (as far as I can see) to be virginal. The responsibility rests solely with the adult to deal with the situation as an adult should.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

We don't need to know anything about the girl, though, surely? Isn't this all about the male. Not sure why it would matter whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground.

It's not her responsibility in this instance (as far as I can see) to be virginal. The responsibility rests solely with the adult to deal with the situation as an adult should.

Well I'd argue against that point because if the girl was acting as "predatory" as the barrister claimed she was then she's evidently not got a very healthy attitude towards sex. If she's a victim in the true sense of the word then this experience will seriously damage her life and therefore it's not "all about the male" - she is a victim and she needs support. On the other hand, if she's only a victim in the sense that she is underage and the law was violated, she still needs support because to be sexually active with a much older man when you're 13 years old is not a healthy attitude towards sex; so it absolutely matters whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground, every bit as much as it matters if she was innocently snatched from walking home and abused by an evil man. Either way, this is a child who has been violated.

[Tom4784]

Statutory Rape is Statutory Rape, regardless of the situation anyone under the age of 16 does not have the Right of Consent. She didn't force herself on him and he went through with it willingly knowing it was wrong.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Statutory Rape is Statutory Rape, regardless of the situation anyone under the age of 16 does not have the Right of Consent. She didn't force herself on him and he went through with it willingly knowing it was wrong.

I don't think it says anywhere whether she did or didn't force herself on him... in fact, I think that's the implication with what the barrister is saying. Once again, I assume people will think I am excusing the man - I am not. It just seems that the media is projecting a victim personality onto the girl when there is no indication that that is the case; if anything the evidence points to the girl actively pursuing the encounter and the man taking advantage of that.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Zee

It's definitely not okay for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old. There is a difference between an unwilling victim and a willing person being victimised, though, in my opinion. People are projecting a personality onto this girl when absolutely no indication was given as to whether or not she herself felt abused - yes it has gone to court, but only because the girl told a friend about it. There's no indication to say that she told a friend because she was upset or she told a friend because she was bragging. People are saying that the poor girl is reliving her abuse etc... but what if the girl doesn't see it as abuse?

..yeah but I don't think a 13yr old is mature enough to make that decision about what she would be 'willing' to do sexually..she isn't old enough to determine abuse, no more than a 9/10 yr old..adults have to determine that for her because she is a child, only they didn't determine it..the judge ruled differently and that's neglect of that girl's wellbeing in my opinion and that's at best..can paedophiles now claim their victims were willing participants..does that make the crime any less...

[Z]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah but I don't think a 13yr old is mature enough to make that decision about what she would be 'willing' to do sexually..she isn't old enough to determine abuse, no more than a 9/10 yr old..adults have to determine that for her because she is a child, only they didn't determine it..the judge ruled differently and that's neglect of that girl's wellbeing in my opinion and that's at best..can paedophiles now claim their victims were willing participants..does that make the crime any less...

I'm sure if she did willing choose to perform sex acts on this man, she will look back on this when she's older and realise how immature she was - but at the time I'd imagine she knew what she wanted to do (if that is what happened - there's still every possibility that the prosecutor was wrong and this girl was victimised against her will.) I don't think it's neglect of her well being if that was the situation at hand though; handing down a harsh jail sentence to a criminal when his victim did not feel like she was a victim could just as easily let girls think they can get away with anything, in the same way you get girls who blackmail boys into having sex with them because if they don't, they'll claim that the boy raped them...

It works both ways - this was clearly an exceptional circumstance in any event, I've never heard of a case like this before so I doubt this will suddenly become a defense for paedophiles everywhere.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Zee

Well I'd argue against that point because if the girl was acting as "predatory" as the barrister claimed she was then she's evidently not got a very healthy attitude towards sex. If she's a victim in the true sense of the word then this experience will seriously damage her life and therefore it's not "all about the male" - she is a victim and she needs support. On the other hand, if she's only a victim in the sense that she is underage and the law was violated, she still needs support because to be sexually active with a much older man when you're 13 years old is not a healthy attitude towards sex; so it absolutely matters whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground, every bit as much as it matters if she was innocently snatched from walking home and abused by an evil man. Either way, this is a child who has been violated.

..for me that's all that's relevant Zee because otherwise who is to decide what 'provocative' is..that seems like quite dangerous territory, what different people would deem to be 'provocative' ..maybe a 5/6yr old in a beauty pageant who is dressed and dancing 'provocatively' in her act...it's absolutely the parent's responsibility to educate and protect a child but in this case that didn't happen, so then it's for the law to intervene..which they didn't either..she was totally let down...

[Livia]

I am not making excuses for the man involved. He should have been jailed, without a doubt. However... you cannot wave an uncorked bottle in front of an alcoholic and then be outraged when they take a drink.

We all have to take some responsibility for our actions, and in the case of the girl involved who was under the age of majority, her parents (or guardians) must take some responsibility. She was not drugged and dragged back to this man's house, she went willingly. It should stand as a warning for all young girls and for the parents of young girls, that there are consequences for being provocative. I'm not saying they deserve those consequences, but they will happen. She was called "predatory" because she acted that way. You can't shoot the messenger for pointing it out.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Zee

I'm sure if she did willing choose to perform sex acts on this man, she will look back on this when she's older and realise how immature she was - but at the time I'd imagine she knew what she wanted to do (if that is what happened - there's still every possibility that the prosecutor was wrong and this girl was victimised against her will.) I don't think it's neglect of her well being if that was the situation at hand though; handing down a harsh jail sentence to a criminal when his victim did not feel like she was a victim could just as easily let girls think they can get away with anything, in the same way you get girls who blackmail boys into having sex with them because if they don't, they'll claim that the boy raped them...

It works both ways - this was clearly an exceptional circumstance in any event, I've never heard of a case like this before so I doubt this will suddenly become a defense for paedophiles everywhere.

..the accused was a paedophile and took a 13yr old girl in school uniform back to his house..I'm not sure how a school uniform could give anyone the impression she could be older or what she did was in anyway responsible for his actions

'He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Judge Peters told Wilson: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison'

[Z]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the accused was a paedophile and took a 13yr old girl in school uniform back to his house..I'm not sure how a school uniform could give anyone the impression she could be older or what she did was in anyway responsible for his actions

'He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Judge Peters told Wilson: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison'

She could be anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform; the barrister said she looked and acted older - evidently this man is a paedophile owing to material he owned and he was probably well aware of the fact she wasn't of age; but you can't give him 100% responsibility over what happened if she willingly went back to his house. That's unrealistic.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

She could be anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform; the barrister said she looked and acted older - evidently this man is a paedophile owing to material he owned and he was probably well aware of the fact she wasn't of age; but you can't give him 100% responsibility over what happened if she willingly went back to his house. That's unrealistic.

Yes you can.