Anti sex-abuse charities reacted angrily after a 41-year-old convicted paedophile walked free from charges of engaging with sexual activity with a minor.
Neil Wilson was given an eight-month suspended jail term after he pleaded guilty to sexual activity with a 13-year-old and making extreme pornographic images.
During the court hearing, his defence lawyer shockingly described the girl as predatory and ‘forcing’ sexual acts upon the 41-year-old, with judge Nigel Peters echoing this, stating during sentencing:
'It was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her.’
‘On these facts, the girl was predatory and was egging you on.’
Prosecutor Robert Colover told judge Nigel Peters:
‘The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.
‘She appeared to look around 14 or 15 and had the mental age of a 14 or 15 year old despite being younger than that.
‘There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr Wilson's doing, you might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her.’
Judge Peters appeared to agreed with the defence statement, concluding:
‘You have come as close to prison as is imaginable.
‘I have taken into account that even though the girl was 13, the prosecution say she looked and behaved a little bit older.
‘You knew she was not nearly 16 as she said, and your plea of guilty recognises that you knew.
‘Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison.
[ASSETHERE=image]
‘That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension.’
Wilson was accused of luring the teenager into his home on various occasions, where she would strip out of her school uniform and perform sexual acts on him.
Following the outcry by campaigners and charities such as the NSPCC, the attorney general is said to be reviewing whether sentencing was unduly lenient.
Addressing the judge’s comments, a CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) spokesperson said:
‘The language used by prosecution counsel was inappropriate. The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts.’