[Susan]

Judge rules it is right that child molester who abused ethnic minority girls got longer sentence because Asian sex crime victims suffer more than whites.

• Paedophile abused two young girls and was jailed for seven years
• Judge said it was an 'aggravating factor' that victims were Asian
• But Appeal Court judge dismisses their claims and backs the move
• Decision criticised by the NSPCC who say justice should be blind to race

A senior judge has ruled a child molester was rightly given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian and so suffered more from his crimes.

Jamal Muhammed Raheem-ul-Nasir was jailed for seven years at Leeds Crown Court last year for sex attacks on two girls, aged nine and 14.

But the paedophile took the case to appeal, with his lawyers complaining that his sentence was unfairly inflated and 'excessive'.

Senior judge Mr Justice Walker has now thrown out those arguments after hearing that the victims' families feared they would struggle to find future husbands because of the abuse.

The move has been criticised by children's charity the NSPCC, who insist justice should be blind to the race of victims.


Nasir, 32, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and four counts of sexual activity with a child and handed the prison term in December last year.

The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an 'aggravating feature' when passing sentence.

She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular 'shame' in their communities because of what had happened to them.

Additionally there were cultural concerns that the girls' future prospects of being regarded as a good catch for arranged marriages might be damaged.

Lawyers for Nasir, of Liversedge, West Yorkshire, argued at London's Criminal Appeal Court that his sentence had been unfairly inflated.

But their complaints were rejected by Mr Justice Walker, who said: 'The victims' fathers were concerned about the future marriage prospects for their daughters.

'Judge Cahill was having particular regard to the harm caused to the victims by this offending.

'That harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their families within this particular community.'


The argument that Ul Nasir was given a longer sentence due to his own 'ethnic and religious origin' was based on 'a misconception', he added.

'The judge who tried the case was in the best position to determine the correct sentence.'

Mr Justice Walker, sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Mitting, at London's Royal Courts of Justice,, concluded: 'There is no basis for saying that Judge Cahill adopted an incorrect starting point. This application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.'

But an NSPCC spokesman said: 'British justice should operate on a level playing field and children need to be protected irrespective of cultural differences.

'Regardless of race, religion, or gender, every child deserves the right to be safe and protected from sexual abuse, and the courts must reflect this. It is vital that those who commit these hideous crimes are punished to the full limit of the law.'




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...me-suffer.html

[CrunchyCripple]

I get what the judge meant. I don't find it offensive, as a white female.

[kellyhound]

it's like the judge is focussing more on the damage done to the family instead of the mental damage done to the girl and that's like saying parents of other races don't suffer equal mental damage when it happens to one of their daughters.
That's almost the same as give a murderer of a black person more years as it can cause more social unrest in certain countries as when a murderer kills a white person.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

What is it with the British and pedophiles? It's like they're simply incapable of making smart decisions with regards to kiddie diddlers.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

What is it with the British and pedophiles? It's like they're simply incapable of making smart decisions with regards to kiddie diddlers.

Don't you mean the British law system? That's like saying why do you have a Muslim sympathizer in the white house.

[Steve]

I agree the sentence is unjust, 7 years is a joke. He will be out in under 5. 15 would have been more apt, Judges in my country seem to be out of touch with reality. They don't seem to get that sexual abuse is a life time deal, they will carry it around with them for the rest of their lives. He will get out of prison and just carry on as fucking normal.

[Pyramid_Head]

The Judge is a fucking moron.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by Top Gear ↗

Don't you mean the British law system? That's like saying why do you have a Muslim sympathizer in the white house.

A society's legal system is established by its citizens. Thus, it is a direct reflection thereupon.

[Susan]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

A society's legal system is established by its citizens. Thus, it is a direct reflection thereupon.

Established by it's citizens? You've been drinking or something, mate.

[icheerthebull]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

I get what the judge meant. I don't find it offensive, as a white female.

I don't think its a case of being offended. While the impact to a victim is sometimes taken into consideration when it comes to sentencing you can't as a judge make claims like the one the judge made.

It appears the family believe they won't be able to marry their daughter off due to the attack. The judge has given credence to such views and as such, in my opinion, should never sit on a case of child abuse again. The parents may have some fucked up views on chastity but how will the victim feel later on knowing the judge has agreed with that bullshit