News RSS Feed


CPS calls for review of child-rape sentence

6:33am Tuesday 26th June 2007

comment Comments (2)   Have your say »


THE Crown Prosecution Service has called on the Government to review an "unduly lenient" sentence given to an Oxford man who raped a 10-year-old girl.

The CPS, which is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales, said it was referring the case of Keith Fenn, a window cleaner from Starwort Place in Blackbird Leys, to the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

A children's charity fronted by the mother of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne called for Judge Julian Hall - who sentenced Fenn to concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences - to be suspended.

If Lord Goldsmith, the chief legal advisor to the Government, decides Judge Hall's sentence was too lenient he could refer the case to the Court of Appeal for review.

Judge Hall could have jailed paedophile Fenn, 25, for five years for the attack in Henley-on-Thames last year, but called it an "exceptional" case because of the girl's perceived maturity.

He also said at the sentencing on Friday: "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."

Fenn could be free in as little as four months, having already spent eight months on remand.

Phoenix Chief Advocates - the independent child protection organisation fronted by Sara Payne and Shy Keenan - called for Judge Hall to be suspended.

In a joint statement they said: "Judge Hall is completely out of touch - but more than that he is dangerously out of touch.

"You would expect to get a life sentence for rape. Unfortunately, Judge Hall typifies for us what is so wrong with the judicial system today.

"It seems full of this kind of entrenched, old-school, anti-victim thinking.

"Victims of crime have a right to justice, society has a right to protection and Judge Hall does not have the right to discriminate against child victims in such an abusive way."

Judge Hall is no stranger to controversy.

In February, Judge Hall told pensioner Eric Cole, 71, who sexually abused a six-year-old girl, to compensate her with money for a new bike.

And in September last year, he wept in open court after reading a statement written by Elizabeth Davidson, whose daughter had been killed in a car crash.

A spokesman for the CPS said: "Thames Valley Crown Prosecution Service can confirm it will be referring the sentence to the Attorney General for consideration under the unduly lenient sentence procedure.

"It will be for the Attorney General to decide whether to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal."

The judicial communications office said judges would not comment on cases outside of open court.

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said: "He has asked for the papers from the CPS so he can consider whether or not to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient."

A spokesman for the NSPCC added: "There is no excuse for having sex with a ten-year-old - no matter how she dresses."


Your Say YourThe Oxford Times

joe bloggs, oxfordshire says...
2:50pm Tue 26 Jun 07

this case is an absolute outrage, it disgusts me to the core. these people should be re-sentenced as what they have done is SICK. and i dont know what that judge is thinking but he is SICK if he thinks its ok to rape a child because she looks older - rape is wrong whatever the age and no way can anyone look 16 when they are 10! what is the world coming to? i am worried for my own children.

Les, Merseyside says...
5:40pm Wed 27 Jun 07

I'm very much in agreement with Joe Bloggs. This is "statutory" rape. IE, even though the girl consented, she is does not have the legal capacity to consent as she is under 13; so it's rape. But at 10, she won't have the mental capacity to consent either.

I'm not sure that the judge is actually allowed to disclose that the child was "sexually precocious" - assuming it wasn't slander. As to being "disturbed", wouldn't you be?There's some other comments I don't think should have been made. eg, the judge is reported to have said "she would have been wearing a lot of make up", which sounds like assumption, not fact. I'm not convinced that wearing jeans is "dressing provocatively". I would have thought they were just the thing to hide her underwear.

Comments are closed on this article.

Sponsored Links


Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »