Today, I am really in no frame of mind to blog about Barnet or nice things. I had to accompany a friend to Oxford Crown Court to provide some moral support today. Not being sure of exactly when the case we were attending was taking place, we sat through all the mornings business (our case was the last before the recess for lunch). The case before the case we were attending rather disturbed me. A young man was being sentenced for the rape of a 9 year old boy. The rape occurred 10 years ago and had apparently had a devastating effect on the victim. The perpetrator was 19 at the time, with learning difficulties and a troubled home life. As the judge heard submissions from the prosecution and the defence, we heard how the police had asked that an order be placed on the perpetrator. We then heard from the judge that he felt that it wasn't appropriate for the police to request such orders and that it should come from a lawyer. We heard from the defence of the terrible effect that incarceration would have on the perpetrator. How he would become institutionalised if he was inside for too long. We heard how he'd not been convicted of any attacks in the intervening 10 years and we heard how he'd had a job.
I have a nine year old son. How would I say someone should be sentenced for such and attack. Personally I wouldn't take the chance. I would say that raping a 9 year old boy is a lock them up and throw away the key sentence. How did the judge see it? Six years and his name on the sexual offenders register with a life ban from working with children. Oh well, at least a few people will sleep more soundly in their beds tonight - and for the next couple of years until he's released.
Normal service will be resumed tomorrow. I just need to have a long, long shower, a large number of beers and maybe a few cigarrettes (I don't normally smoke). I need to wash every trace of that courtroom from me, kill every braincell that looked at the face of a child rapist and inhale some smoke to hide the taste of breaths of air I took which were breathed by the same monster. I drove back from Oxford with the phrase "Anal penetration of a nine year old boy" rattling around my head. Some things are just too vile to really deal with at all. Sorry for sharing any of this.
Wow, I'm really surprised that the judge gave you access to all the relevant documents including confidential reports on the accussed and victim, with full details of their individual records and behavioural observations. I'm also really amazed at how you managed to get the judge to allow you to fully read and digest reports by experts, and risk analysis documentation, as well as discussing the finer details of the case, and the legal conditions of the case.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that such things are, in these sort of cases, only revealed in closed sessions, and it's not everyone hanging about waiting for another unrelatedcase that catches the judge's eye and convinces him to be allowed to read, understand and take advice on such things in a very short spell.
Pat,
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right in your sarcastic way. I heard none of the myriad of justifications for the light sentence (lower than the recommended minimum tariff, by the Judges own admission). I just heard that the defendent had been found guilty of raping a boy the same age as my son.
I heard a few discussions of the subject and I saw the reaction of the family of the victim who were sitting behind me.
Sure my reaction may be, in your eyes, ignorant and ill informed. I may lack compassion for the felon. I may be out of touch with your idea of what constitutes justice.
Sadly there is a part of me which just says that for some people a life sentence with no remission is the best thing. I heard enough to draw that conclusion and I can say without doubt that nothing in any of the papers I had no access to would change my mind.
Remind me, which part of the Town Hall did you say you worked in on your previous postings?
Was there any statement about the impact on the victim? I know that in murder cases this is allowed but I'm not sure about other serious offences (and as a mother of 3 boys I agree that this case sounds as serious as you can get).
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty is that the perpetrator of a crime is represented by a highly trained lawyer and usually is doing his best to appear 'respectable'. When a lot of time has passed without a reported repetition of the offence, as in this case, it's an obvious mitigation for a barrister to draw attention to draw attention to this. It is mitiation in the sense of being an absence of an aggravating factor.
Again, a barrister would be failing his or her client if it was not argued that people change as they grow older. This doesn't take into account that the perspective of the perpetrator and the victim may well alter very differently in this period.
In my work as a court clerk, the difference between a bedraggled, bloodstained, hungover Saturday morning defendant and the smart, tidy alert mid-weeker was drastic. I learned that people accused of hideous crimes can look just like the rest of us (seeing Dennis Nilsen in the Old Bailey the scariest thing was how normal he was). It is all too easy for a skilled advocate to present a highly convincing case as to why this misguided, repentant soul deserves leniency.
If victims had legal representation to present their impact statement with the same force as the perpetrator's case is presented the justice system, for sentencing, might just be a bit more balanced.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteSince you asked, the judge described the effects of the attack on the victim as devastating. This wasn't elaborated on in court beyond this other than to refer to reports, but it was acknowledged.