On returning following a short break, the court was asked by the defendant’s advocate, Samuel Steel, to continue passing sentence in the boy’s absence and, while saying this was unusual, Judge Catherine Fooks agreed.
The boy, who is not being named because of his age, had pleaded guilty to a total of four offences – rape, digital penetration, sexual assault and assault – on a girl.
All of the offences stemmed from the same incident from October 2024 when the boy and girl were both 13.
The two had briefly dated. On the day the boy invited the girl to meet him for a walk.
Soon after they started walking the boy tried to touch the girl’s breasts and suggested she perform a sex act, which she refused.
They sat beside a tree and the boy pressured her for sexual activity. He put his hand inside her jogging bottoms, sexually assaulted her, choked her by pushing her head against the tree and putting one arm around her neck, making it hard for her to breathe. Eventually she agreed to carry out a sex act. They walked back to where they had met and she left him to go home.
Some time later she messaged the boy to ask why he had done what he did. He said he did not know and begged her not to tell anyone. In a victim impact statement the girl, now 14, said that after the experience she needed noise to help her sleep to block out the thoughts in her head. She did not feel safe dating anyone else and had started self-harming.
Advocate Samuel Steel, defending, said the youth accepted full responsibility for his actions. He was remorseful and determined to change the trajectory of his life. He had written a letter to the court and one apologising to the victim.
At 13 he had been immature both emotionally and psychologically and had been assessed as having ADHD and autism traits. He had a history of self-harm.
The advocate suggested that culpability was substantially reduced by the boy’s age at the time. Much had been put in place to help rehabilitate him and this would be jeopardised with an immediate custodial sentence, as well as increasing the risk of regression to self-harm and deep social isolation.
Before the youth left the dock Judge Fooks told him that the offences were so serious that only a sentence of immediate youth detention was deemed appropriate.
In subsequent comments, which were to be printed out for the defendant, she said that had he been an adult he would have been sent to prison for six years.
He was made subject to a seven-year sex offenders notification order and an extended sentence of three years was also imposed.