Man who raped 10 year old girl given 2 years in jail

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Children's charities have reacted with anger after a window cleaner who raped a girl of 10 was jailed for two years.

Keith Fenn, 24, will be free in four months after a judge said the girl, who was attacked in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, had appeared older.

 

The charity Kidscape accused Judge Julian Hall of "trying to find excuses" and said a child must never be blamed.

 

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is to decide whether the sentence should be appealed against as "unduly lenient".

 

Judge Hall had said that the sentencing had been the most difficult decision he had ever made, but the girl had appeared to be 16.

 

She was attacked by Fenn and an accomplice in a park in Henley-on-Thames on 14 October last year.

 

Moral dilemma

 

Oxford Crown Court heard that Fenn removed her clothes and raped her, while an accomplice, Darren Wright, 34, took her home and sexually assaulted her.

 

The judge said in sentencing he faced a moral dilemma as the fact they had sex within 45 minutes of meeting was an absolute crime.

 

But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16.

 

He gave Fenn concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences, but he will be free in eight weeks after serving eight months in prison awaiting sentence.

 

Wright is already free as Judge Hall had already given him a nine-month sentence for inciting the girl to perform a sex act.

 

'Back to the 1950s'

 

Dr Michele Elliott, director of Kidscape said the decision had left her "lost for words".

 

She said: "It takes us back to the 1950s when the victim was blamed if they were dressed provocatively.

 

"No one in my opinion could mistake a 10-year-old child, even dressed up, for a 16-year-old. They are just trying very hard to find excuses.

 

"You can never blame a child victim for sexual abuse when excusing the abuser of any kind of abuse."

 

The NSPCC added: "There is no excuse for having sex with a 10-year-old, no matter how she dresses."

 

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said he had asked the Crown Prosecution Service to send him the papers on the case, and would consider whether or not to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as "unduly lenient".

 

He has 28 days to make a decision.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6237480.stm

 

 

This is the same judge who freed a paedophile and told him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle to "cheer her up". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../03/nbike03.xml

 

 

[2GOLD 0]

 

So wait, what? It's ok to rape her because she LOOKED 16? The hell, is rape a misdemeanor in the UK or something?

I am extremely confused how it should matter how old she looked if they attacked her and RAPED her.

 

Nothing like a judge who thinks a 10 year old was dressing like a whore and asking for it. Good job judge, good job.

[Guest Smues]

Could a 10 year old look 16? Sure. Does that excuse motherfucking RAPE? Hell no. Appeal the sentence, fire the judge.

[2GOLD 0]

Could a 10 year old look 16? Sure. Does that excuse motherfucking RAPE? Hell no. Appeal the sentence, fire the judge.

 

The additional worst part is the other guy, who assisted in the rape and then took her home to rape her again, was given a nine month sentence for inciting a sexual act. And he's already out on the street just chilling.

 

So basically they raped a 10 year old girl twice and the judge gave them a grand total of 2 years and nine months. Her life is ruined forever and odds are extremely low she ever recovers from it yet the judge decides, "That's what she gets for asking for it."

 

Too bad we can't charge his ass with conspiracy.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Could a 10 year old look 16? Sure.

 

I'm not too sure about that. I think at 12 or 13 a girl could pull it off. But 10?

 

[Nighthawk 0]

The article is ambiguously worded. It seems like this could be consensual sex, but rape solely on the grounds that she was 10.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

The article is ambiguously worded. It seems like this could be consensual sex, but rape solely on the grounds that she was 10.

 

It was rape. Everything I've read says the men attacked her.

 

Anyway, according to British law, sex with any child under 13 is considered full blown rape, rather than statutory rape regardless of whether they appear willing or not.

 

[Nighthawk 0]

Good law. In any case, I also agree with your doubt that a 10 year old could look 16. A 16 year old could look 10... but the other way around? Nah.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeesh, I figured this was going to be a story somewhere in the US. I guess our court system is as messed up as anywhere else.

[2GOLD 0]

 

From the other article

 

Children's charities have attacked the decision of a judge who freed a paedophile and told him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle to "cheer her up".

 

Eric Cole, who has a previous conviction for sexually assaulting a child, admitted touching the girl as she played in a garden.

 

Judge Julian Hall gave the 71-year-old a nine-month suspended sentence and ordered him to pay £250 compensation, telling him: "If it buys her a new bicycle, that's the sort of thing that might cheer her up."

 

Wow, this judge is out of their damn mind. I gotta wonder how exactly they are still a judge after these back to back rulings.

 

[MrRant 0]

Fucking Great Britain.

[Youth N Asia 0]

that only gives the other inmates 2 years to shank this bastard, not nearly enough time.

[Slayer 0]

It was self defense

[MrRant 0]

It was self defense

 

aka "she was asking for it."

[Red Baron 0]

Was the child ugly or something?

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

I blame Disney.

 

But, irregardless, the judge is a fuckin moron.

[Jingus 0]

He's gotta be a pedophile himself, letting off other childfuckers with leniant sentences. That's the only possible reason I can come up with as to why this judge would make both these retarded rulings.

[Anakin Flair 0]

From the 'Daily Telegraph'

Girl provoked pedophile - judgeFrom correspondents in London

June 26, 2007 12:00am

 

 

10-year-old girl was raped and assaulted

Judge says victim 'dressed provocatively'

Pedophile will be free in just four months

 

A PEDOPHILE who raped a 10-year-old girl will be free in just four months after a British judge said his victim had "dressed provocatively".

 

Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 24, could have been jailed for life after twice attacking the girl in a riverside park.

 

Judge Julian Hall was at the centre of a storm over the "pathetic" sentence he imposed after hearing the girl had appeared much older than her age.

 

The same judge caused uproar earlier this year by setting free another paedophile and telling him to give his victim money "to buy a nice new bicycle".

 

In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the 10-year-old. She was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.

 

Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her.

 

Yet Judge Hall said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.

 

The girl has been in local authority care since the age of four.

 

She was on her own when she met the pair in the street. They went to the park together. The judge said he faced a moral dilemma.

 

The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans.

 

"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said.

 

"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16."

 

He gave Fenn concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences but he will be free in just weeks after spending eight months in jail awaiting sentence.

 

Wright is a free man because he too had served eight months on remand.

 

Yesterday Dr Michele Elliott, of Kidscape, said: "This is beyond pathetic, it is utterly derisory. For the judge to say that the way she was dressed in any way excuses a 24-year-old man having sex with her is disgraceful and ridiculous."

 

Fenn admitted two counts of rape of a child under 13 and Wright admitted one charge of causing or inciting sexual activity with a child aged under 13.

 

I just cant think of anything to say, except that rape is rape.

 

[AntiLeaf33 0]

What the fuck is wrong with some people? Oh, she looked older, so now its a less serious rape. You can go home now if you want, it was an innocent mistake.

 

Fuck Sakes

[Guest Smues]

There was already a thread regarding this so I merged the posts from the new thread into this one.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Sorry. Didn't see the other thread.

[Guest Hasbeen2]

Crazy..so even going by his logic, rape of a 16 year old is just worth 2 years?

[2GOLD 0]

Crazy..so even going by his logic, rape of a 16 year old is just worth 2 years?

 

If you rape an adult woman, he'll probably give community service and tell you to buy her a nice dress, cause it'll make her happy again.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said.

 

...I am completely gobsmacked. Really, I can't believe anyone would want this quoted/printed for public eyes. Does anyone - not here, obviously, but out in the crazy world - believe this judge's bullshit? My god, because the girl liked to wear spaghetti strap tops and filly undies, she's disturbed, needy, and sexually precocious?! WTF, seriously. Ten bucks says the judge, somewhere in his mind, believe the rapists actually helped their victims in some twisted way. Just... goddamn, I'm beyond words here.

[Jericho2000Mark 0]

Why are so many judges allowed to get away with ignoring the very laws they are hired to enforce? There really needs to be something in place to ensure these judges act in the best interest of the law, not their own retarded, fucked up beliefs. I completely agree with whoever said the judge was probably a pedophile.