Thursday, August 31, 2006

'Lenient' sex offence sentences appealed

A young woman exhausted with fighting the system that is there to protect us. I am pleased this survivor has the courage and strength to write a book about her ordeal so that other rape victims “have something to relate to”. One brave and gutsy young woman.

Read more...An 18-year-old rape victim attended an appeal court hearing Monday as prosecutors claimed the jail sentences handed to her attackers were too lenient.

Tegan Wagner said that while she was "exhausted" by the length of time the case had taken, she wanted to see justice.

"I'm still waiting for everything to be over, so it's still taking a bit of strain on my own personal life," Ms Wagner, who has waived her right to anonymity to encourage other rape victims to speak out, said outside court.

Prosecutors have appealed against the jail terms given to three Sydney brothers for sexual offences, arguing that they do not reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

The men were already serving lengthy jail terms for gang rape when they were sentenced in April for assaulting Ms Wagner and another teenage girl at their Ashfield home, in Sydney's inner-west.

The crown on Monday challenged the latest sentences given to the Pakistani trio, who can only be identified as MSK, MAK and MMK.

MSK, 27, and MAK, 26, were convicted of sexually assaulting Ms Wagner on June 14, 2002, when she was aged 14.

MSK was also convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl known as CH on July 14, 2002.

Earlier that night, the girl had had consensual sex with MMK, who was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor.


When the brothers were sentenced for the offences, their jail terms were made partly cumulative with sentences they were already serving for the 2002 rape of two other girls, aged 16 and 17.

In 2004, NSW Supreme Court Justice Brian Sully had sentenced MSK and MMK to 22 years each behind bars for those rapes, while MAK was jailed for up to 16 years.

Last April, Justice Peter Hidden effectively ordered MSK to serve at least another five-and-a-half years for raping Ms Wagner and CH, while MAK was sentenced to a minimum two years on top of his earlier sentence.

MMK, now 19, will spend no extra time in jail, serving his 12-month term at the same time as his other sentence.

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, Crown Advocate Richard Cogswell, SC, argued that MMK's sentence was inadequate and "failed to recognise the harm done to the victim".

He was convicted under a law designed to protect young women from sexual violation, he said, and the sentence "fails to deliver any punitive response at all".


Mr Cogswell said MAK's sentence did not reflect the gravity of his criminal behaviour and the offender was simply not adequately punished, he said.

The sentence handed to the ringleader and oldest brother, MSK, was "manifestly inadequate", he said.

MSK had encouraged MAK to assault Ms Wagner and threatened CH with violence as he raped her, telling her he had strangled a girlfriend and hung her from a balcony.

Chief Justice Jim Spigelman, and Justices Anthony Whealy and Roderick Howie reserved judgment on the appeal.

But Chief Justice Spigelman indicated they would increase MSK's maximum term by at least two years, to take into account a miscalculation in his sentence.
Outside court, Ms Wagner said she was "exhausted" by the legal proceedings, which have dragged on for four years.

"I'm not happy that justice hasn't been served yet," she told reporters.
Ms Wagner is writing a book about her ordeal so other rape victims "have something to relate to".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060828/2/10b6b.html

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Deputy head jailed after sex with pupils

Article from The Guardian:
"A deputy headteacher who had sex with two vulnerable teenage pupils after posing as their mentor was yesterday jailed for five years and three months. Stephen Brenchley, "targeted and groomed" the girls, the youngest of whom was 13, during a time when both were having problems at home, Norwich crown court heard.

Read more...
The teacher had sex with a 15-year-old at a Suffolk school in the 1980s but escaped detection until he had a relationship with the second girl after moving to Costessey high school near Norwich between 2002 and 2005 while he was a deputy headteacher.

Brenchley, 48, a father of three, was described in court as a "dangerous and corrupting influence". He offered to show the 13-year-old "how to have sex properly" after she told him she was thinking of sleeping with a boy, the court heard.

A police investigation only began when the pair split, the court heard.

Katharine Moore, prosecuting, said the girl had described herself as "troublesome and attention seeking" and that Brenchley had become her mentor. Ms Moore said the girl was 13 when the pair first attempted to have sexual intercourse. They did not have sex on that occasion, but went on to have sex once or twice a week. Ms Moore said the girl had ended the relationship when she was in the sixth form.

The girl and Brenchley initially denied their relationship. But he was rearrested when the girl's father found a letter from him to his daughter. The letter implored the girl not to cooperate with the police.

Brenchley admitted five sex offences against the girls during an earlier hearing. He admitted having sex with a girl between 2002 and 2005 and indecently assaulting a girl between 1984 and 1986."
Article from The Guardian Tuesday 15 August, 2006

What comes first the teacher or the paedophile? Does tutoring nubile pre-pubescent girls turn an adult male’s sexual preference from grown consenting women to easily manipulated vulnerable young girls. Girls who are growing up in a pornography-saturated environment, who are identifying from an alarmingly early age that to be born female equals pleasuring men by the male standard. Alternatively, do tutoring nubile pre-pubescent girls attract these men to be given a sanctioned opportunity to abuse vulnerable “Barely legal teens” or maybe even these “Teen Sluts” which seem to be fair fodder for the ever-worshiped male sexual privilege?

Thursday, August 17, 2006

'Police Disbelieve Women On Rape'

A poll has found one third of people think a woman is at least partly to blame for being raped if she is flirtatious, and a quarter if she is drunk or wears revealing clothing.

This is not a new article as it was published on the BBC website in November of last year. Lets face it, nothing much is going to have changed in eight months - is it? So I thought it was well worthy of another airing, just to remind ourselves just what we are up against.

One woman, raped at the age of 20, told the BBC News website she never reported it for fear it would not be taken seriously. She agrees that it was a shocking stastic but that she was not surprised; as public perception of rape is affected, by the way rape is treated by the justice system.

"I didn't hold much hope that it would be taken seriously"

Read more...
She felt it would have been too much of an ordeal to go through, as she did not have any faith that the Police would take her seriously, coupled with the low conviction rate she did not hold up much hope that her rape would be given the gravity of seriousness that it deserved.
She knew her attacker, she had had a drink with him, he was a friend, she had been drinking and she had kissed him. That was as far as she had wanted it to go. She was raped by him, but did not report it to the Police.

"It wasn't what I would have thought rape was. I know now that most people are raped by someone they know. It's not the 'stranger danger' that people think happens, bushes and knives. I didn't know that - it's not something that was ever covered at any stage of my life, there's no education at school. I didn't know the statistics."

The sexism, and yes the misogyny in the justice system needs to be challenged and turned on its patriarchal head. Women seem to be of little value, their safety and integrity appears to be an after thought. As long as the police and the judiciary are getting away with not taking rape seriously, things are not going to improve. Women continue to be questioned regarding their previous sexual history, although this was addressed and disallowed a couple of years ago. Many Judges don’t even realise that questioning of the victims sexual past is not permissible. They need to be held accountable, for the way they treat women when they report rape, and do their job properly, gather evidence and make sure the resources are going into that area.

Rape is not taken seriously, approximately 6% of rape cases that get to court are convicted of their crime. When you combine this with the huge percentage of women who don’t even report the crime, it points to a rape culture. We live in a culture, a so-called civilised society that minimises the horrific act of rape, disbelieves the woman if she reports it, and if it does get to court, brings her past previous sexual history as something to be held in 'evidence' - evidence for what? That she may have 'deserved' it?

Virgin - Whore - or Saint... anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4458122.stm