Abuser of girl, 13, is jailed by appeal judges

Three judges at the Court of Appeal in London ruled that the non-custodial term originally handed out in the case of Neil Wilson, 40, of York, was “plainly and without doubt unduly lenient”.

A sentence of 12 months, suspended for two years, was handed out to Wilson in August after he admitted engaging in sexual activity with the child, as well as offences of making indecent images of a child and offences of possession of an extreme pornographic image.

A row broke out shortly after the case was heard at London’s Snaresbrook Crown Court when it emerged that prosecuting barrister Robert Colover had labelled the young girl “predatory” and “sexually experienced”.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve referred the sentence given to Wilson, formerly of Romford, Essex, and now living in York, to appeal judges to decide if it should be increased.

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas and two other judges yesterday quashed the suspended sentence and ordered Wilson, who was not in court, to surrender to police in York by 6pm yesterday.

Following the case, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that Mr Colover had agreed to resign from the CPS Rape Panel of advocates, admitting his description of the girl as “predatory” and “sexually experienced” was inappropriate.

The CPS said Mr Colover “will remain on our general advocate panel and will still be instructed in other criminal cases”.

A number of complaints about remarks made during sentencing by Judge Nigel Peters, who said he was taking into account how the girl looked and behaved, are being “considered” by the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office.

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Lord Thomas said that how prosecuting counsel “came to make the remarks he did is not a matter, as he is not present, we can investigate ourselves”.

He added: “But in any event it is the duty of the court to sentence on the facts before it. Counsel is there to assist.

“The fact that counsel makes a fundamental error in introducing a factor that is thought to be relevant cannot in any way affect the power of this court in determining what is the correct sentence.”

Lord Thomas went on: “This is a case where there is no dispute as to what actually happened. It is simply a case where the judge and counsel were in error that it was relevant, as a mitigating factor, that the sexual activity had been initiated by the victim. That was wrong.”

He stressed that the law was there to protect those under 16 from sexual abuse and agreed with the Attorney General that children who encouraged sexual activity needed “more protection, not less”.

Speaking after the hearing, the Attorney General said: “Neil Wilson exploited a young and vulnerable girl. He pleaded guilty to sexual activity with a child, making indecent photographs of a child and possessing extreme pornography.

“I asked the Court of Appeal to examine whether the sentence was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offences, and I am pleased that they have found that this sentence was unduly lenient and have imposed an immediate sentence of imprisonment.”

Lord Thomas said: “There were other aggravating factors to this case. First of all the offender must have known, as the judge said, that she was under 16. By his plea he accepted that. The fact that she may have looked more than her age is irrelevant.

“He must have appreciated her vulnerability. She was in school uniform. She had absconded from school and was asking for cigarettes on the street in Romford.

“The offender plainly preyed on her vulnerability and encouraged her by buying her cigarettes and inviting her to his flat and he gave her his mobile phone.”

Detective Inspector Simon Ellershaw, of the Metropolitan Police’s sexual offences, exploitation and child abuse command, said: “It is unfortunate when some within the criminal justice system perpetuate the myth that vulnerable young people are in some way to blame for the sexual abuse that they suffer.

“The sentence passed today at the Royal Courts of Justice goes some way to redress this. I hope that this will give other victims the confidence to come forward.

“Neil Wilson is the only predator in this case – he took advantage of a girl who was extremely vulnerable in the worst way possible.”