General Chat

A teenage babysitter who raped a four-year-old girl has been told he won't go to prison – despite the girl's parents fight to put him behind bars.

The 14-year-old blindfolded the little girl with a Hello Kitty apron and promised her a 'chocolate' before raping her.

Earlier this year, he walked free from Cambridge Crown Court after receiving only a community order and continued to live just a few doors away from the family.

The case sparked outrage around the country after the judge blamed 'the world and society' because the boy was addicted to pornography.

And the sentence so incensed the girl's parents that they appealed for the teen to be punished with a harsher sentence.

They said the judge's comments had 'cheapened' their daughter's ordeal.

But the Attorney General's office has said the appeal will not be allowed to go ahead because the case was 'difficult to sentence'.

It said the Court of Appeal would not regard the sentence as 'unduly lenient' and the case will not progress further.

The victim's mother - who cannot be named for legal reasons – said they were resigned to the outcome.

"It is coming up the anniversary of the attack and we don't wish to drag it all up again," she said.

"Now the decision has been made, we cannot appeal. We are now going to move on with our lives.

"It is disappointing, but as ever our priority is our little girl and her happiness - we just have to move on.

"We want to keep her life normal, we don't want to reinforce the memory and we want her to remain as content as she is now.

"We hope it doesn't effect her relationships in later life."

The abuse took place at the girl's Cambridgeshire home in December last year - the first time her parents had let the teenager babysit the girl alone.

But Judge Gareth Hawkesworth let him walk free because he said the schoolboy, who regularly accessed hardcore pornography on his laptop, was just being impulsive.

The judge told him: "I believe you have become sexualised by your exposure to and the corruption of pornography. Your exposure at such a young age has ended in tragedy.

"It was the fault of the world and society." At the time, the boy, now 16, said: "I think my hormones took over."

The judge said: "I'm satisfied it was impulsive."

He imposed a five-year sexual offences prevention order - barring the boy from using computers or mobile devices to view porn. His progress and whereabouts will continue to be monitored by police for the next two and a half years.

I remember the Judges comments making me see red at the time

Now the Attorney Generals office have made it worse for the poor parents who have waited for an appeal

How hard a can it be to impose a sentence?

Perhaps he should move in with the judge whilst serving his community order as the judge deems himself to be outside of the world and society

At least that would spare the child, her parents and brother having to see this boy in their neighbourhood.

So next time he does it............... hormones & impulses?

Lock him up.

I wonder how the judge would feel if it happened to HIS 4 year old grand daughter?
The boy will no doubt feel he has got away with what he did to that poor little girl, and probably do it again, he should be locked up to make sure he cannot.
What is the world coming to? The 'law' has gone mad.

It's disgusting and appalling that this lad has been let off this crime, and the judge should be punished too for being such a wimp and saying it was 'impulsive' - so what, it was still very wrong and the boy must have known it, it wasn't that impulsive that he didn't have time to think of blindfolding the child and promising her chocolate.

How his family can have the gall to stay in the same area as that poor little girl I don't know - where were they when he was accessing all this porn that so turned his 14 year old mind? And then to stay nearby the house where the child lives, that's awful.

I am sure I wouldn't be able to contain my outrage and anger and heartache if it was my child molested, I would want to make sure that lad paid for his crime and never had a moment's peace.


Hope the little one manages to have a happy contented life without this affecting her badly.

Lizx

I remember being outraged too by this at the time.

What planet do these judges live on? Seems to me it's all about the teenage rapist and not in the best interests of this poor little and girl and any other little girl that he might gets his mits on in future..SHE is the victim in all this after all !!!!....surely the best interests of the whole of the community are to stop this from happening again and giving him a consequence for his actions?
That judge needs to be looked into a bit further I think......

Not commenting on the sentence or the case but please remember that rape covers a wide spectrum, not just forced penetration.

some judges are so out of touch with real life :-(
i think teenager or not name and shame

so parents can protect their kids as the law is failing to do it :-( :-(

No doubt he is named in his home area, people will have found out. But it does seem unduly lenient, well very lenient. I wonder how the judge will feel when he does it again. And he probably will.

I hope the little girl is not too traumatised and will go on to live her childhood with no more problems.

So if I feel the impulse to go up to someone in the street and hit them will I get away with it ? No.

How can they monitor the persons use of a computer or mobile device as surely they could be accessed at a friends house - unless the parents of his friends have barred that person from their homes.

What will a community order teach that person ?

Most ridiculous judgement ever.

Thankfully her parents seem to be level headed.

Castrate the sorry excuse for a human being [the boy ,not the judge] and the judge ,he should be sacked forthwith.Fred :-(

CUT HIS BITS OFF.........simples.



F.

i know somebody who 10 year old daughter was abused by a 50 year old neighbour
the dad put a brick through the pedos window
and when he come out the dad hit him just once

the dad went to jail for 18 months
while the pedo got nothing :-(

No I do not agree with the Judge ... but what also angers me is once again a child damaged due to bad judgement on the parents part .. , if he was under 16 he should never of been babysitting in the first place .. are parents so desperate for nights out that they throw caution to the wind and take these risks ?

"difficult to sentence" - not in my book

I agree with Sylvia, I would not leave a four year old child with a 16 year old babysitter - but that is by the by - this boy will undoubtedly reoffend and when he does it'll be interesting what happens to him next time - and as for the judge - words fail me on that one

Whilst i don't agree with the judge this lad should have had a custodial sentence but the parents need to take some responsibility, My parents never left me with a babysitter

I have children from two marriages and we never had babysitters we simply included the children in our social life and the only time anyone other than me and OH looked after them was when the youngest was over 10 years old and then they stayed with grand parents

Simple, If you want children then be prepared to look after them 24/7

Roy

Thanks for the interesting comments.

Sharron I am not particularly bothered about the nuances of the definition of rape. He was charged with this offence and at the least it was sexual abuse on a four year old.

At 14 years old he must have known what he was doing was WRONG. He appears to have got away with this virtually free of any punishment (as we understand the word).

Did his parents know what he was doing prior to this assault? If he had an addiction to porn surely they must have had an inkling?

As a juvenile I assume his criminal record will be sealed. I don't know if this offence will be available to future employers if he chose to work in an environment where children were vulnerable.

Her family appear to be handling this fiasco of the judgement with dignity, I doubt very much I could have been the same.

Our 3 children were looked after once every 2 months by teenage girls or boys. The four babysitters were all family friends, they had often accompanied us to the swimming pool so we could each have one child to swim with. They were about 6,7 and 8 at the time. So I cannot criticise the baby sitting arrangements.

I have doubts that this boy will adjust his behaviour as it doesn't appear that he has received any punishment for his actions.

Sue