Sexual harm
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550520933723b |
Probation Journal 67(3)
in order to supply drugs’, observing that ‘people involved in the supply of Class A
drugs, even in small quantities at the bottom of the supply chain and acting on the
instructions of others, will in most cases’ incur immediate custody. However, the
judge had erred in his ‘rigid’ view that only an immediate custodial sentence could
be passed on people who deal with Class A drugs. The long abolished ‘exceptional
circumstances’ threshold test for suspension of imprisonment [within CJA 1991,
repealed by CJA 2003] does not remain valid. Had the judge ‘engaged more with
the facts of’ M.’s case it ‘would have been appreciated’ that the mitigation arising
from being ‘exploited and set up by others’ and his personal circumstances,
including his prospects of rehabilitation, justified suspension. ‘This was not the case
of a person who had had advantages in life.’ A suspended sentence order (18
months for two years, without conditions) was substituted. [Note: this judgment
should be read in tandem with that of Hussain and O’Leary (above, also featuring
young adults) and, though the nature of M’s offending was not identical, with that of
Payne (above), where the tone adopted presents an interesting contrast of
approach.]
R v MANDISHONA, [2020] 1 Cr App R(S) 33.
Sexual harm
Adult dom and child sub: ‘Classic’ grooming?
Having initiated a Twitter search using the term ‘DDLG’ (‘Daddy Dom Little Girl’) a
girl aged 15 had begun online communication with J. aged 55 who was aware of
her age and claimed to be in his 40s. She had asked him whether he had a ‘sub’
(submissive) and told him that she had been a ‘little’ for around six months. Having
initially presented himself as caring and protective, warning her to be very cautious
of dominator ‘perverts’ who would exploit her, he won her confidence and she
began sending him sexualised pictures of herself, sometimes involving the admin-
istration of pain, including a video of her penetrating herself and masturbating,
filmed shortly before her 16th birthday when their continuing contact ceased to be
criminal. As the Court of Appeal put it: ‘He instigated it, controlled it and placed
[her] in the position where she thought it was the right thing to do, always for [his]
sexual gratification.’ Noticing a concerning change in her behaviour and person-
ality, her parents had discovered her secret activities, including sums that J. had sent
to her bank account. He was duly traced.
Of previous good character J. had served in the Army with distinction for over
20 years, attaining a rank involving considerable responsibilities which he had
undertaken in an exemplary way. Father of three children he had been acting as
full-time carer for his wife who was confined...
To continue reading
Request your trial