Chigwell teenage child-molester – who raped a six-year-old boy for 10 months – has sentence reduced by High Court
- Credit: PA Wire/PA Images
A teenage child-molester who repeatedly raped a six-year-old for almost a year has had his sentence reduced to just three years at the High Court.
He was initially sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, by Judge John Lafferty at Snaresbrook Crown Court.
A Royal Courts of Justice spokesman, where the teenager’s appeal was heard, confirmed the sentence had been reduced to three years at a hearing this week.
A sexual behaviour order is still in place, which bans the teenager taking part in unsupervised activity with children under 13 for 10 years.
Charges were brought against him when the young victim’s mother discovered the pair in a state of undress in a disabled toilet.
As police investigated the case, a pattern of grooming and sexual exploitation was revealed that Judge Lafferty described as “emotional blackmail”.
During the sickening acts, which occurred between April 2015 and January 2016, the teen would tell the young boy “close your eyes, it’s all a dream”.
- 1 Search continues for man who fled scene of Loxford stabbing
- 2 Update on search for older man walking barefoot along Chigwell Road
- 3 Fairlop Waters car park to transform into ice-rink for Christmas
- 4 Covid survivor, 16, urges people to get jabbed after months in hospital
- 5 Missing man seen on Chigwell Road found 'safe and well'
- 6 Masks, PCR tests and boosters: New measures to combat Omicron variant
- 7 Nine rescue pets looking for homes this Christmas in east London
- 8 What are the chances of a white Christmas in London?
- 9 East London man charged with six terrorism offences
- 10 Warning issued over fake Omicron variant test scam
The child-molester would also run the taps in the toilet to avoid being discovered.
Peter Saunders of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, stressed that in cases where a child had committed a sexual assault, a prison sentence is not always the best remedy.
He told the Recorder: “If he were a couple of years older I would say, ‘lock him up and throw away the key’, but a child or a young person can be helped to see what an evil, defiling thing they have done and never even think about performing such acts again.
“In that sense talking about the difference between a five year sentence and a three year sentence is irrelevant really, all that matters is that this child doesn’t grow into an adult offender.”
Because of several complicating factors this paper cannot disclose, the Recorder originally appealed to the court to be allowed to identify the teenager and tell the whole story, but this request was denied.