Barrister criticised for calling child abuse victim 'predatory'

[story]

And the second half of your post, trabuquera? I found that equally odd. Of course it's complicated: it's a court case. Are you really saying that learning difficulties or, ooh, mental health issues, or having been in care or anything else might make the alleged crime more understandable or more forgivable? And are you saying that suggesting that prior sexual experience in the child makes any subsequent sexual assault visited on the child somehow more understandable? And are you suggesting that the defence has no other manner of showing us mitigating circumstances than to openly declare the child culpable in her own assault, because she was out to get the bloke in some way?

I'm trying very hard, in this ongoing open debate we seem to have embarked upon, to stay calm and open minded, to remain objective and not bring any of my own stuff into the picture. But your post seems to me to be part of the problem: "There must be a jolly good reason for men to behave as they do. There must be a jolly good reason for the defence to attack the child in this way."

Am I being oversensitive? Maybe you need to look at what you said and why you said it.

By the way, I am not saying it's open and shut, black and white, I'm right you're wrong. I'm saying that we need to really get to grips with what's actually going on, and how we enable this shit - all of us - if we have any hope of changing it.

 

[story]

story: the *shrug* was about some of the apparent surprise expressed in the debate that things should be this bad - it was NOT a *shrug* at their BEING bad. Describing the ongoing abuse of women is not to endorse it. My apologies if this wasn't made sufficiently clear. My point was "yes, things continue to suck, why does this surprise you so?", rather than "that's life, knuckle under and toughen up".

Maybe it's not a surprise though. In fact, I'd suggest that there is no surprise at all about the attitudes displayed by the barrister. The brazen nature of the attitudes may be remarkable (this shit is usually dissembled to some extent), but after all the bloke was just doing his job. And you know it's not uncommon for the defence to attempt to demolish the witness/alleged victim: quite the opposite: it's the standard manner of calling the accusation into question.

And as I have posted already on this thread, the notion that children are in some way predatory is not novel or unique either.

Maybe if there is any surprise, it's about the way it's come to public attention to be examined and discussed at all.

 

[trabuquera]

And the second half of your post, trabuquera? I found that equally odd. Of course it's complicated: it's a court case. Are you really saying that learning difficulties or, ooh, mental health issues, or having been in care or anything else might make the alleged crime more understandable or more forgivable? And are you saying that suggesting that prior sexual experience in the child makes any subsequent sexual assault visited on the child somehow more understandable? And are you suggesting that the defence has no other manner of showing us mitigating circumstances than to openly declare the child culpable in her own assault, because she was out to get the bloke in some way?

I'm trying very hard, in this ongoing open debate we seem to have embarked upon, to stay calm and open minded, to remain objective and not bring any of my own stuff into the picture. But your post seems to me to be part of the problem: "There must be a jolly good reason for men to behave as they do. There must be a jolly good reason for the defence to attack the child in this way."

What I was trying to express is that there are genuine problems of defining "vulnerability", when sentencing those with learning disabilities (or mental health problems MAYBE) for any offence, including sexual offences. The offences took place, and the victims deserve justice; how best to deliver justice when the victimizers have serious problems of their own is the moot point.

None of that makes attacking, defaming or downright revictimizing the victim OK, which is certainly what seemed to have happened in this case - which seems to have been a complete mess all around where all sorts of people were doing things they shouldn't have (the defence for dragging the victim's sexual past into things in the first place and even the prosecution apparently echoing these irrelevant and slanderous remarks). All of that is utterly unacceptable in any case, whatever the defendant or the victim's status is.

when you say "But your post seems to me to be part of the problem: "There must be a jolly good reason for men to behave as they do. There must be a jolly good reason for the defence to attack the child in this way."" - I WROTE OR IMPLIED ABSOLUTELY NONE OF ANY OF THAT,and very much resent your implying that I did.

 

[story]

Thanks for clarifying what you said: I appreciate the time you took to do so without creating a bun fight.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply any of the things I received from your post. And you're within your rights to feel aggrieved.

But will you allow that my reaction was not me looking for trouble or a hysterical over-reaction?

I've challenged you while being aware that I may have got it wrong, and your clarification makes it clear to me that I misunderstood your original post.

Might you consider the possibility that your original post could have been taken as... well, odd? I think I'm known here for being reasoned and fair, and it really hit a wrong note for me. I accept that I have baggage here, but I do try to be objective, but it really read very oddly to me, like some kind of apologia.

We all of us have to be alert to the ways in which we perpetuate the shit we're dealing with here. If that barrister thought it was okay to declare that child culpable in her own assault, it was only because he thought he'd find a sympathetic ear. He is a professional, and he'd not have mentioned it if he thought it would damage his case... so he must have assumed there was a good chance the jury would agree with him. So either he's mad, or a piss poor barrister, or he's right and some people - enough people, maybe most people out of the 12 - would agree with him.

One of the ways I help to perpetuate the shit is by not challenging it. So now I challenge it.

 

[trabuquera]

Might you consider the possibility that your original post could have been taken as... well, odd? I think I'm known here for being reasoned and fair, and it really hit a wrong note for me. I accept that I have baggage here, but I do try to be objective, but it really read very oddly to me, like some kind of apologia.

Like anything ever written anywhere, my OP could certainly have been worded better. But I struggle to see how this:
"on the thread's original topic - regardless of the lawyers' utterly inappropriate, wrong and rage-inducing use of words (and the attitudes they portray) - I hate to be That Person, but honestly if half I have heard about the case is true, then its full reality really is a bit more complicated - including evaluations of how far defendant is himself vulnerable (learning difficulties etc.) "

qualifies as apologia.

I wrote that part of the post because I've become used to seeing extremely complicated trials reduced to simplistic narratives in the press/media - and sometimes misunderstood entirely. I do think it is very relevant to the discussion of any case if the defendant has learning difficulties or MH issues. And a great many offenders (including those who commit heinous crimes which everybody would like to see punished) DO have those problems.

I'm totally willing to concede that "things are more complex" may be open to misinterpretation and read as "... because victims lie, bla bla bla" (which would be standard-issue men's rights nonsense and NOT what I believe at all ) rather than ..."because every court case contains worlds of difficulties about what both victim and victimiser perceived was going on" or ..."because the full issues of a trial don't get reflected in the media or an internet outrage campaign". etc.

Should people be completely outraged at the use of the word "predatory" in this context? absolutely. did the barristers involved act abusively in using it? absolutely too, in my opinion. Is this sort of crass misogyny common in our legal system? yes again. but in raising the point of what to do with offenders-with-difficulties I was trying to raise more nuance and more detail to the discussion than merely go *yes, nod, absolutely, it's bloody awful*. Because I am growing tired of just stopping at saying that sort of thing. because this sort of bloody awful event is too common.

 

[Frumious B.]

Just reading what was actually said- 'the girl is predatory in all her actions and is sexually experienced' and then the judge sentencing said he was taking into account that the victim 'looked and behaved older than she was'

Do you have any more context than that? I'd be interested in reading his whole 'speech'.

 

[Manter]

Do you have any more context than that? I'd be interested in reading his whole 'speech'.

just a cut and paste from the Guardian website- sorry, no more than that

 

[aylee]

Yes Manter, interesting article ..

Not the whole thrust of the article but I can quite understand people not wanting to pursue a perpetrator because of the ordeal they are likely to face.

Not defending the idiot for the comments he made, but can someone suggest how we ensure that someone gets a fair trial while minimising the impact on victims? It is a very difficult balance indeed.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Not defending the idiot for the comments he made, but can someone suggest how we ensure that someone gets a fair trial while minimising the impact on victims? It is a very difficult balance indeed.

There was no need to use an emotive & loaded term like predatory to describe the girl nor mention her physical maturity in order to give the guy a fair trial.

 

[toggle]

And as I have posted already on this thread, the notion that children are in some way predatory is not novel or unique either.

Maybe if there is any surprise, it's about the way it's come to public attention to be examined and discussed at all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...rolds-weve-heard-this-one-before-8751738.html

if you needed proof it's not a new thing, then this, it just gets tied up in slightly different language in different eras

 

[weltweit]

There was no need to use an emotive & loaded term like predatory to describe the girl nor mention her physical maturity in order to give the guy a fair trial.

Well you might expect the alleged perpetrator's defence barrister to try that but not the prosecution.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Well you might expect the alleged perpetrator's defence barrister to try that but not the prosecution.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[thedockerslad]

Of course it stinks.
My point is that regardless of the input from social services or even the Old Bill, whether it was good, bad or indifferent, it's not the place of either the prosecution or judge to make value judgements about a witness based on their prejudices. The place of the prosecution is to prosecute the defendant, the place of the judge is, after the jury's decision, to allot a sentence, taking into account any mitigating factors derived from the trial evidence. The sexual precocity of the witness would be neither here nor there, and even if it were allowed to be taken into account, the judge would have to make the same allowances for mitigating factors (as I mentioned earlier, acting out after trauma is fairly common) as he would for the defendant.

Yes I know and agree with your point. However this has happened and the blame game is on. I don't think it's enough to just look to blame the judge and the two counsel. There is a well established route that is followed to reach this point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes I know and agree with your point. However this has happened and the blame game is on. I don't think it's enough to just look to blame the judge and the two counsel. There is a well established route that is followed to reach this point.

Sure. The criminal justice system in toto is just as rife with institutional prejudices as its' primary arm (the police) is, and for (IMO) more easily dealt with reasons. If you draw the majority of your policy-makers and litigators from the same shallow and narrow pool of schools and colleges, then you not only promote insularity, but reinforce any prejudices these men (because it's mostly men, and men who attended single-sex schools, at that) took on board during their mostly white, and single-sex at primary and secondary level, educations.
And lets not even get into the the clannishness of the Inns of Court, let alone the highest prevalence for a profession of Freemasonry and Masonic lodges.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not defending the idiot for the comments he made, but can someone suggest how we ensure that someone gets a fair trial while minimising the impact on victims? It is a very difficult balance indeed.

The criminal justice system can only ever/do only ever what it can to make sure a trial is as fair as possible.The balance is difficult, but it's also subject to enough legislation that if a trial can be shown to have been "unfair", it can be over-ruled.
Some of the techniques used by defence barristers don't promote a fairer trial for their client. The only purpose they serve is to upset the witness and hopefully trip them into contradiction or inarticulacy. Repetitive questioning over a prolonged period is recognised as a mild form of mental torture/"enhanced interrogation", for example.

 

[fishfinger]

Barrister resigns from CPS sex case panel after court comments

A barrister who described a 13-year-old victim of sex abuse as "predatory" in court has agreed to resign from the Crown Prosecution Service's rape panel of advocates, the CPS says.

Robert Colover will no longer prosecute in cases involving serious sexual offences or child sexual abuse.

It's something, I suppose. Not much help for the victim.

 

[DexterTCN]

"Counsel in the case agreed that he should not have used the expression that he did and deeply regretted his choice of words.

A damning indictment? No.