Teenage paedophile keeps anonymity

[Ed: Yes, as you can guess from the funny spelling of "paedophile", this story comes from our zealous sex crime fighting cousins from across the Atlantic. The teenager in question has been assured of his anonymity and that he will not be "named and shamed" [even our own Christian fundamentalists could not come up with a more Puritanical turn of phrase]. However, there can be no doubt that, while protecting his "anonymity", he is clearly not protected from the small minds of the court who, in sentencing him to fifteen months in prison, know that much more than his anonymity is being shorn from him. You can be sure that decades will pass and he will still be labeled a "paedophile" and will forever be made to suffer from this designation. The courts are further assured that "the girl had been badly affected psychologically by the ordeal". Do they EVER say anything else? Would they have taken comfort in the possibillity that the girl was not badly affected? Actually, no and they will do whatever they can to ensure that she DOES suffer so that they can then justify the suffering they will impose upon the teenager in an act of revenge from which they themselves will draw, and which the public has yet to identify as, a very creepy satisfaction.]

Dec 24 2008

A TEENAGE paedophile who subjected a young relative to years of abuse escaped being publicly named and shamed after two top judges banned his identification.

The teenager, who lives in the Loughborough area, appeared at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, December 18, complaining about the 15-month sentence he received for more than two years of abusing the pre-teen girl.

At his trial, the abusive 19-year-old put his young victim through the ordeal of giving evidence about their sordid games of cards, where the girls losing forfeits involved touching his private parts.

In July he was convicted of seven sample counts of sexual activity with a child and seven more of causing a child to engage in sexual activity at Leicester Crown Court.

He unsuccessfully appealed his sentence, but succeeded in convincing Mr Justice Forbes and Mr Justice Pitchford that his identity should not be made public.

His lawyers argued that the reporting restriction was necessary to protect his victim and the judges ordered that only anonymised reports could be published.

This decision is rare in courts, where the public interest in knowing the identity of offenders is normally upheld by orders banning only details which identify sex crime victims.

Mr Justice Pitchford told the court that the girl had been badly affected psychologically by the ordeal.

From 11 years-old she was abused by the teenager at his home when her parents were away, with the abuser persuading her to touch him and allow him to touch her indecently.

His crimes only came to light when he sent the girl a graphic text message enticing her to engage in much more serious sexual activity.

She told her mother and the abuse was reported, but the teenager refused to admit what he had done until he was awaiting sentence after being found guilty.

Lawyers for the youth argued in court that 15 months was too long, since the vast majority of his offending had occurred before he was an adult. But Mr Justice Pitchford said that they had taken into account everything that was necessary in arriving at the 15-month term.