[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Livia

But the hoohar surrounding this case is because the barrister called the girl "predatory". Which, judging by her behaviour, is a perfectly accurate description.

His defence did not rest solely "on an assumption that he was unable to say no", you're making an assumption on your own interpretation of the barristers words, because you have not read the full transcript and I assume you weren't at the trial.

Neither of us have access to full transcripts.Therefore both of us are drawing on our own interpretation of the words.

When sentencing Wilson to eight months' imprisonment suspended, it seems that the judge, HHJ Peters QC, referred to the 13-year-old female victim as 'predatory.' Unfortunately, this is a case where sentencing remarks are not available, and so only the media reports are available. The barrister representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Robert Colover, is reported to have said to the court: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/...a-media-furore



Regardless: that girl was not in court to be judged; the defendant was. Yet in the summing up she has been judged and branded as predatory and essentially made partially responsible for something in which she can bear no such responsibility and on the basis of that description of her action as predatory, the 41 year old man who allowed or encouraged a girl who looked two years under the age of consent to return with him to his home, strip and engage in sexual activity walked away with a suspended sentence:

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.

http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.i...active_id/5752