A terrible case

[TightEnd]

This is clearly a horrible case. The parent's behaviour is horrible, but the judge/legal system?

Amazing stuff


Here is the news report


PAEDOPHILE IS FREED AFTER VICTIM'S PARENTS ACCEPT £18,000 PAY-OFF

THE parents of a four-year-old boy were branded “reprehensible” by a judge ­yesterday for taking an £18,000 pay-off to buy their silence from the teacher who sexually abused him.

Instead of calling in the police to tell them that paedophile Gerard Raffell, 42, had repeatedly assaulted their child between 2004 and 2005, they demanded the money to use as a deposit on their new home.

Raffell, who was a close family friend, paid off the parents, quit his job as a maths teacher and moved house.


His offences only came to light four years later when the youngster spoke to others about what had happened.

Judge Ian Alexander QC said Raffell had effectively already been fined and punished for his crime and spared him a jail term, placing him instead on a three-year community sex offenders’ treatment programme.

The judge said: “This is a very ­troublesome case. In 2004 and 2005 you behaved disgustingly. You were a close friend and you were a school teacher but you sexually interfered with a young child.”

Raffell “bought off” the child’s ­parents for £18,000 to stop them going to the police, the judge said.

“That is reprehensible behaviour on their part. But you complied with that position,” he continued.

“It’s made a quandary and I am quite satisfied you need treatment. I could not in all conscience be able to send you to prison for a period long enough to receive that treatment.”

Children’s campaigners condemned the parents for taking cash for silence. Claude Knights, director of children’s charity Kidscape, said: “£18,000 is a lot of money but you cannot put a price on that kind of incident.
   
“The whole reason we have a legal system is to prevent situations like this. The boy is clearly still traumatised if he was talking about it four years later. It is so disturbing that a family would enter into this kind of bargain, particularly as it leaves other children at risk.”

Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, said: “For the parents to cash in on a horrendous crime committed against their son in this way shows a complete failure to appreciate the enormity of the offence and an indifference to the threat the offender represented to other vulnerable children.”

Raffell pleaded guilty to four counts of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity at Northampton Crown Court.

Stuart Yeung, prosecuting, told the court Raffell was living in Daventry, Northants, and working as a teacher at the time of the offences.

Raffell, who moved to Edgbaston, Birmingham, was arrested in October last year and was found with 50 indecent images on his computer but he was not charged separately over these.

Hena Vissian, mitigating, said the former teacher had confessed as soon as he was confronted with his crime and was seeking help from a psychiatrist.

But Tory MP Philip Davies said: “To me it sounds perverse that the judge says he can’t give him a prison sentence long enough so doesn’t send him to prison at all. How does that actually make any sense?”

Northamptonshire Police said the parents “had no case to answer”, despite taking the cash.

Raffell was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and was banned from working with children ever again.
 

[GreekStein]

Wow that's so disgusting.

£18,000 is a bowl but so would £100,000,000 be if my child had been victim of a paedophile imo. Pretty sure I wouldn't be happy unless he was in the ground.

[gatso]

the parents need to be put on the register

[EvilPie]

Maybe if they thought our joke of a legal system would actually get them some justice they would've gone to the police.

Slap on the wrist. Offender's register. Protection from the public. Blah blah blah..... What's the point?

Perhaps they thought an 18k fine was more punishment than he'd get if they spoke up?

[Graham C]

The fine is irrelevent, they've let a sex offender off, who knows who else he is harming?  Surely even if he only gets a few months (which I'm pretty sure is never the case in these sort of cases) then at least he's been labelled for what he is.    

This is what going to the police is about "Raffell was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and was banned from working with children ever again."  - protecting your children

[gatso]

Maybe if they thought our joke of a legal system would actually get them some justice they would've gone to the police.

Slap on the wrist. Offender's register. Protection from the public. Blah blah blah..... What's the point?

Perhaps they thought an 18k fine was more punishment than he'd get if they spoke up?

or they could be sick fucks who are happy to leave someone who's been touching their kids free to do it to someone else's as long as they get a few grand

[Claw75]

There's bound to be a lot more to it if you scratch the surface - hard to judge on the basis of one news report imo.

[Bongo]

The fine is irrelevent, they've let a sex offender off, who knows who else he is harming?  Surely even if he only gets a few months (which I'm pretty sure is never the case in these sort of cases) then at least he's been labelled for what he is.    

This is what going to the police is about "Raffell was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and was banned from working with children ever again."  - protecting your children

Would a few months inside help to protect children?

[gatso]

The fine is irrelevent, they've let a sex offender off, who knows who else he is harming?  Surely even if he only gets a few months (which I'm pretty sure is never the case in these sort of cases) then at least he's been labelled for what he is.   

This is what going to the police is about "Raffell was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and was banned from working with children ever again."  - protecting your children

Would a few months inside help to protect children?

he won't be touching any for those few months and he won't be teaching again ever so that's a yes

[Graham C]

The fine is irrelevent, they've let a sex offender off, who knows who else he is harming?  Surely even if he only gets a few months (which I'm pretty sure is never the case in these sort of cases) then at least he's been labelled for what he is.   

This is what going to the police is about "Raffell was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and was banned from working with children ever again."  - protecting your children

Would a few months inside help to protect children?

he won't be touching any for those few months and he won't be teaching again ever so that's a yes

The fine is irrelevent, they've let a sex offender off, who knows who else he is harming?  Surely even if he only gets a few months (which I'm pretty sure is never the case in these sort of cases) then at least he's been labelled for what he is.   

This is what going to the police is about "Raffell was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and was banned from working with children ever again."  - protecting your children

Would a few months inside help to protect children?

of course.

[Bongo]

He won't be teaching again anyway as he's been banned from doing that.

So you're argument for prison is basically "he won't touch anyone while he's inside" but after that it's fair game?

[EvilPie]

Maybe if they thought our joke of a legal system would actually get them some justice they would've gone to the police.

Slap on the wrist. Offender's register. Protection from the public. Blah blah blah..... What's the point?

Perhaps they thought an 18k fine was more punishment than he'd get if they spoke up?

or they could be sick fucks who are happy to leave someone who's been touching their kids free to do it to someone else's as long as they get a few grand

I doubt they were happy with it but maybe they thought 18k was better than being dragged through courts and having everything go public.

Perhaps they thought they could best protect their child by keeping him away from this person in a new house somewhere else. If they go to court the person gets locked up but they're stuck in the same house with the same memories and nobody to help them get away.

The justice system we have doesn't help victims so there would be no relocation to help them make a fresh start. Perhaps they thought this was best.

This ends up being similar to the Madeleine McCann thing. Everybody throws accusations left right and centre but nobody really knows the facts. Just be careful calling the parents scumbags because it's just possible that they're not and they did what they felt was best for their child.

Or maybe they went to Vegas for a fortnight.

[Graham C]

He won't be teaching again anyway as he's been banned from doing that.

So you're argument for prison is basically "he won't touch anyone while he's inside" but after that it's fair game?

Is this a level?  He's only banned because the authorities got involved.  The time in prison isn't the end of the problem, he'll then be monitored for, well probably for ever.

Why on earth would it be fair game afterwards?

[gatso]

Just be careful calling the parents scumbags because it's just possible that they're not and they did what they felt was best for their child.

a scary thought is that it's also quite possible that the teacher thought he was doing what was best for the child

[Bongo]

Well you answered if he was inside he wouldn't be touching kids, implication if he wasn't he would be. I imagine he's subject to the same scrutiny whether he goes to prison or not.