Those sexually predatory 12 year old girls!

[Rum]

In the news today. A barrister, in court concerning an offence of sexual abuse on a girl of 132 (now 13) accused here of being 'predatory' and almost 'forcing' her poor 41 year old attacker to give her one..

Barrister, thankfully, suspended from such cases.

Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23605577

Barrister suspended from sex cases after court comments


A barrister who described a 13-year-old victim of sex abuse as "predatory" in court has been suspended from sexual offence cases pending a review.

Robert Colover has been criticised for his remarks, in which he also described the girl as "sexually experienced".

The Crown Prosecution Service said he would not be instructed in sex cases while it considered his situation.

Neil Wilson, 41, admitted abusing the girl at his home in Romford, London, and was given a suspended jail term.
'Real concern'

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) described Mr Colover's language as "inappropriate".

The CPS said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would carry out a review and decide what action to take.

A CPS spokesman said: "We are now considering the involvement of this barrister in sexual offence prosecutions and have advised his chambers that we will not instruct him in any ongoing or future cases involving sexual offences in the meantime."

The CPS added: "The word predatory in this context should not have been used and is of real concern to the CPS.

"It is not consistent with the work that we have undertaken alongside the judiciary and others in the past year to improve attitudes towards victims of abuse.

"We expect all of our prosecutors, including self-employed barristers who act on our behalf, to follow our guidance in these very difficult cases."

The Metropolitan Police said the word "predatory" did not did not appear in any police material concerning the victim.

A Met spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Service is aware of reports in the media surrounding terminology used by the prosecution barrister in the case of Neil Wilson.

"This is not terminology the Met Police Service would use to describe a victim in such a case, and was not used by the officer who provided testimony in this case."
'Absolutely right'

Prime Minister David Cameron said he supported the position of the CPS.

He said: "I think the CPS are absolutely right to say that what one of their lawyers said was not appropriate. It isn't appropriate. We need a criminal justice system that stands up properly for victims.

"The victims should always be at the centre of our thinking and I'm pleased the CPS have made that statement and I'm also pleased that the attorney general has said that he is personally going to look into this case."
Judge Nigel Peters leaving Snaresbrook Crown Court 7/8/2013 Judge Nigel Peters, shown leaving Snaresbrook Crown Court, was appointed a circuit judge in 2012

Labour has written to the Bar Standards Board to ask it to investigate whether Mr Colover had breached its code of conduct.

Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry said: "It is appalling that, after the scandals of Jimmy Savile and Rochdale, these awful Lolita prejudices are still being served up in court, and by the prosecution of all people."

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said a prosecutor must draw to a court's attention any matter that assists the defendant - and it is not at all unusual.

But, our correspondent added, the prosecutor needed to scrutinise the potentially mitigating material carefully and the language in which it is expressed.
Sentencing hearing

The police were alerted to the actions of Wilson, who now lives in York, after his victim told a friend. Images of child sex abuse were also found on Wilson's computer.

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

Mr Colover, who was employed by the CPS at Wilson's sentencing hearing at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday, said: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

The judge, Nigel Peters, said that when deciding Wilson's punishment he had taken into account the prosecution's comments that the girl looked and behaved older than she was.

Wilson's eight-month jail term was suspended for two years. The Attorney General's Office said the sentence had been drawn to its attention as "possibly unduly lenient".

Details of the case came as the head of the judiciary in England and Wales said a select pool of judges with specialist training would be created to handle complex child abuse cases, amid concerns at the way some child witnesses were treated in court by lawyers.

Javed Khan, chief executive of independent charity Victim Support, 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."

However, Carl Gardner, a former government legal adviser, warned that most people commenting on the case did not know the full facts.

Paul Mendelle, a criminal barrister and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the behaviour of the victim is not usually a mitigating factor.

An online petition on Change.org calling for the CPS to investigate the language used by Mr Colover has been signed by 30,000 people.

[Robert_S]

What grand scale chutzpa.

[klr]

"You sir, are an idiot!"

[Seth]

Idiots. What if she IS a sexually-experienced sexual predator and not a victim. The notion that no under-age girl wants and is willing to coerce sex from an older man is patently ridiculous and constitutes mindless kowtowing to fundamentalists who don't understand psychology or biology.

I refer you to the movie "The Crush" with Alicia Silverstone for an example.

Let's suppose the "victim" has the hots for the 41 year old and says "If you don't fuck me I'm going to tell the police that you raped me and you'll go to jail for the rest of your life."

Sounds like coercion to me.

And the defense attorney's job is to present the best possible defense for his client...at least in the US, where innocence is presumed, not guilt. That they would sanction the attorney for presenting a "juvenile sexual predator" defense would be cause for a mistrial and even an acquittal because it presumes that the defendant is guilty and that the "victim" is innocent before the evidence has proven that fact.

This is exactly how innocent men get sent to jail by teenage cunts with a vindictive streak.

[Seth]

"The victims should always be at the centre of our thinking and I'm pleased the CPS have made that statement and I'm also pleased that the attorney general has said that he is personally going to look into this case."
Judge Nigel Peters leaving Snaresbrook Crown Court 7/8/2013 Judge Nigel Peters, shown leaving Snaresbrook Crown Court, was appointed a circuit judge in 2012

Unbelievable! This judge should be disbarred because he is clearly biased.

The "victim" is not in fact and law a "victim" until the jury has rendered a verdict that the defendant is guilty of committing a crime. Until then she's merely a "complainant" or "plaintiff."

The assumption by the judge (and everybody else) that she's a "victim" is inherently biased and deprives the defendant of a fair and impartial trial.

The center of thinking in any criminal trial must be truth and nothing else.

[Rum]

Fucktard.

The point is that the girl by virtue of age is legally unable and unqualified to give consent whatever the nature of whatever went on between the two of them. It is therefore the legal responsibility of the adult to act within the law. Its the fucking law..as it were. Jesus.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What's up, Seth? You're in a particularly argumentative mood tonight, even by your high standards. Did someone piss on your gun or something?

[Strontium Dog]

Idiots. What if she IS a sexually-experienced sexual predator and not a victim. The notion that no under-age girl wants and is willing to coerce sex from an older man is patently ridiculous and constitutes mindless kowtowing to fundamentalists who don't understand psychology or biology.

I don't think it was so much the argument that she pursued the accused sexually which was problematic, more the particular language he used. So even if she was, for example, a cock-hungry little tart, you can't put it in those terms.

[Robert_S]

Idiots. What if she IS a sexually-experienced sexual predator and not a victim. The notion that no under-age girl wants and is willing to coerce sex from an older man is patently ridiculous and constitutes mindless kowtowing to fundamentalists who don't understand psychology or biology.

I don't think it was so much the argument that she pursued the accused sexually which was problematic, more the particular language he used. So even if she was, for example, a cock-hungry little tart, you can't put it in those terms.

Our Pennsylvania police chief has apparently set the international bar for professionalism.

And if a barrister cannot outsmart a 12 year old, then what business do they have representing anyone or anything?

[Rum]

Idiots. What if she IS a sexually-experienced sexual predator and not a victim. The notion that no under-age girl wants and is willing to coerce sex from an older man is patently ridiculous and constitutes mindless kowtowing to fundamentalists who don't understand psychology or biology.

I don't think it was so much the argument that she pursued the accused sexually which was problematic, more the particular language he used. So even if she was, for example, a cock-hungry little tart, you can't put it in those terms.

She may well have been, but the point of course is that any adult male who exploits that is the guilty party by default. Seth's pathetic point is a rapists' and abusers' get out clause and charter.

[mistermack]

Nobody knows the details of this case. The one thing that is pretty clear is that the girl WAS sexually experienced, and WAS predatory in nature, in the sense of aggression and an instinct to exploit.
Anyone who thinks that thirteen year olds are incapable of that, has a very naiive outlook. I've come across thirteen year old girls who are as hard as nails. And plenty of thirteen year old boys have committed rape. I remember one case, when a thirteen year old boy raped his thirty year old teacher.

You don't get to be a victim, just by virtue of being a certain age. And the age of consent is a joke. As if people suddenly become able to consent, at midnight, on their sixteenth birthday.
That's what the law says, but it's not reality.

If the judge and the prosecutor said that about the girl, it's virtually certain to be true. And reading between the lines, it sounds like the guy was autistic, or at a low level of learning, and has been exploited and manipulated by some pretty cynical teens. That's my guess.

[Seth]

Fucktard.

The point is that the girl by virtue of age is legally unable and unqualified to give consent whatever the nature of whatever went on between the two of them. It is therefore the legal responsibility of the adult to act within the law. Its the fucking law..as it were. Jesus.

That's a different argument entirely. Even if it's statutory rape, the defense is entitled to present mitigating circumstances, of which a known sexually predatory history on the part of the girl is entirely relevant.

There's also the possibility of jury nullification if the circumstances are egregious enough that the jury believes it would be a miscarriage of justice to convict him...such as if the girl was extorting him and he felt he had no other choice, or even that the choice was the lesser of two evils.

There are many reasons why a statutory prohibition on underage sex may not be a just result for a particular individual.

I object to the presumption of guilt and the obvious bias of the court.

[Warren Dew]

Fucktard.

The point is that the girl by virtue of age is legally unable and unqualified to give consent whatever the nature of whatever went on between the two of them. It is therefore the legal responsibility of the adult to act within the law. Its the fucking law..as it were. Jesus.

That's a different argument entirely. Even if it's statutory rape, the defense is entitled to present mitigating circumstances, of which a known sexually predatory history on the part of the girl is entirely relevant.

It was actually the prosecutor's statements that are at issue here.

[Seth]

Fucktard.

The point is that the girl by virtue of age is legally unable and unqualified to give consent whatever the nature of whatever went on between the two of them. It is therefore the legal responsibility of the adult to act within the law. Its the fucking law..as it were. Jesus.

That's a different argument entirely. Even if it's statutory rape, the defense is entitled to present mitigating circumstances, of which a known sexually predatory history on the part of the girl is entirely relevant.

It was actually the prosecutor's statements that are at issue here.

Which makes an even more compelling argument for a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated.

[Collector1337]

Fucktard.

The point is that the girl by virtue of age is legally unable and unqualified to give consent whatever the nature of whatever went on between the two of them. It is therefore the legal responsibility of the adult to act within the law. Its the fucking law..as it were. Jesus.

The law means nothing. What matters is psychology and biology.

12-13 year olds can, and have, committed murder and then tried as an adult because of the heinous nature of their crime.

It's about psychology and individual maturity which is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The existence of a sexually experienced 12-13 year old sexual predator, is definitely plausible... especially these days.