10 year old girl agrees to be gang raped.

NINE men who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.

Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order, The Australian newspaper reported this morning.

Queensland's attorney-general is meeting with the state's prosecutions boss to consider the possibility of lodging an appeal against the sentence. The appeal period has lapsed, however it has been reported that the state could apply for an extension.

Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months.

Judge Bradley said from her Cairns home yesterday that she considered the sentences "appropriate" in the case because they were the penalties asked for by the Crown prosecutor.

"I am not in a position to comment and I refer you to my sentencing remarks," Judge Bradley told The Australian.

Family supporters of the child victim warned that violence and murders could follow the judge's decision not to jail any of the offenders, and they questioned what message the ruling sent to the community.

When sentencing seven co-accused on October 24 at Aurukun, Judge Bradley noted: "The girl involved was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."

The four juveniles are aged 14 to 16 years. They and the adults come from some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York.

Two more juveniles pleaded guilty on November 6 to raping the child, and were also given probation with no convictions recorded.

The child victim, now aged 12, does not enjoy the elevated family status of her attackers, and has had to be removed from Aurukun and put with foster parents.

News of the non-custodial sentences has added to the violent hatreds that exist in Aurukun between families and tribes and which have played a part in recent brawls involving dozens of assailants, many armed with sticks and spears.

Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said last night he had called for an urgent meeting this morning with state Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare, who, it is understood, was not told of the submissions made by her prosecutor for non-custodial sentences for the rapists.

Mr Shine said he needed to receive a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the sentencing, including the prosecutor's submissions.

"I have been made aware of this tragic event this afternoon and have had an opportunity to read the sentencing remarks," Mr Shine said.

"I'm truly horrified by the circumstances of these offences. The circumstances of this case have not previously been brought to my attention, and nor has there been any communication with my office with regard to an appeal.

"Rape, particularly of a 10-year-old girl, by numerous offenders, is to my mind horrific in the extreme.

"It therefore appears to me that what I consider to be a particularly lenient sentence needs explanation."

One of the adult rapists is on the Australian National Child Offence Register following a conviction on March 29 last year for unlawful carnal knowledge of a female child - an offence committed after he was charged with the rape of the 10-year-old girl.

Judge Bradley said the man was the oldest and should have known a lot better.

"You cannot have sex with anyone under 16," she said.

"However, as I said before, I am not treating anyone any differently in terms of being a ringleader, and in your case, again, I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today.

"But if you get into more trouble in the next year, you could end up in jail." The man had been arrested on August 7, 2006, and the judge said the 14 days he spent in custody awaiting his sentence was to count as "imprisonment already served".

When sentencing the juveniles, Justice Bradley said: "All of you have pleaded guilty to having sex with a 10-year-old girl and (one of the juveniles) has pleaded guilty to having sex with another young girl as well.

"All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16.

"If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail.

"I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you.

"But you were taking advantage of a 10-year-old girl and she needs to be protected, and the girls generally in this community need to be protected.

"This is a very serious matter. It is a very shameful matter and I hope that all of you realise that you must not have sex with young girls.

"Anyone under 16 is too young. Some of you are still children yourselves. Others of you are adults but I am treating you all equally in terms of the behaviour.

"I am not treating any of you as the ringleader or anything like that."

She asked each prisoner to stand up and said she hoped they would realise it was wrong to have sex with young girls.

Justice Bradley then offered them probation and when each agreed to accept that, she said she would not record a conviction.

To one of the juveniles, she said: "You are still a child. You have pleaded guilty to one offence of rape.

"You have been in a lot of trouble in the past, though, and you still have some community service to do.

"You have not been doing that well. I am prepared to offer you probation but you have got to stick with the rules of probation."

The juvenile agreed and was then placed on 12 months' probation, with no conviction recorded.

Formus said:
Secondly, it's much better for young sex offenders to be rehabilitated with a stern hand and encouragement than it is for them to be stuffed into prison with a bunch of murderers and hardasses. After all, they're still kids, and they're still in their formative years when behavioral patterns are most easily malleable. I think the second point is much easier to argue than the first, and is probably why they were given probation in the first place.

Formus said:
2 things could have gone into this. Firstly, the girl does appear to have wanted the sex, and while it can be argued that 10-year-olds can't make decisions like that as well as older people, it can never be explicitly proven. If she was reasoned, not inebriated, etc, then the fact that this was consensual goes a long way. I personally am not a fan of the straight-to-jail statutory rape punishments because so much statutory rape is consensual, and is not actually "rape" by its barest, most connotative definition. 10 years old may be pushing the envelope, but the spectre of consensuality is enough for me to step back and be more reasonable about the punishment if I'm a judge.

Secondly, it's much better for young sex offenders to be rehabilitated with a stern hand and encouragement than it is for them to be stuffed into prison with a bunch of murderers and hardasses. After all, they're still kids, and they're still in their formative years when behavioral patterns are most easily malleable. I think the second point is much easier to argue than the first, and is probably why they were given probation in the first place.

Formus said:
2 things could have gone into this. Firstly, the girl does appear to have wanted the sex, and while it can be argued that 10-year-olds can't make decisions like that as well as older people, it can never be explicitly proven. If she was reasoned, not inebriated, etc, then the fact that this was consensual goes a long way. I personally am not a fan of the straight-to-jail statutory rape punishments because so much statutory rape is consensual, and is not actually "rape" by its barest, most connotative definition. 10 years old may be pushing the envelope, but the spectre of consensuality is enough for me to step back and be more reasonable about the punishment if I'm a judge.

Secondly, it's much better for young sex offenders to be rehabilitated with a stern hand and encouragement than it is for them to be stuffed into prison with a bunch of murderers and hardasses. After all, they're still kids, and they're still in their formative years when behavioral patterns are most easily malleable. I think the second point is much easier to argue than the first, and is probably why they were given probation in the first place.

Vestril said:

10 may be pushing the envelope? When do we definitely push the envelope? 5?

Formus said:
2 things could have gone into this. Firstly, the girl does appear to have wanted the sex, and while it can be argued that 10-year-olds can't make decisions like that as well as older people, it can never be explicitly proven. If she was reasoned, not inebriated, etc, then the fact that this was consensual goes a long way. I personally am not a fan of the straight-to-jail statutory rape punishments because so much statutory rape is consensual, and is not actually "rape" by its barest, most connotative definition. 10 years old may be pushing the envelope, but the spectre of consensuality is enough for me to step back and be more reasonable about the punishment if I'm a judge.

Formus said:
2 things could have gone into this. Firstly, the girl does appear to have wanted the sex, and while it can be argued that 10-year-olds can't make decisions like that as well as older people, it can never be explicitly proven. If she was reasoned, not inebriated, etc, then the fact that this was consensual goes a long way. I personally am not a fan of the straight-to-jail statutory rape punishments because so much statutory rape is consensual, and is not actually "rape" by its barest, most connotative definition. 10 years old may be pushing the envelope, but the spectre of consensuality is enough for me to step back and be more reasonable about the punishment if I'm a judge.

Formus said:
Holy crap, did someone just play devil's advocate? SERIOUSLY? THAT never happens.

varukasalt said:

What the fuck do you need to play devils advocate for a bunch of assholes who GANG RAPED A 10 YEAR OLD!!!! Why is that so fucking hard to understand how fucking sick that is? Do you really believe that any kind of sex with a 10 year old under any circumstances could possibly be in any way OK? If you do, you seriously need to stay the fuck away from kids.

Formus said:
Holy crap, did someone just play devil's advocate? SERIOUSLY? THAT never happens.

Formus said:
Holy crap, did someone just play devil's advocate? SERIOUSLY? THAT never happens.

Formus said:
Holy crap, did someone just play devil's advocate?

Formus said:
Holy crap, did someone just play devil's advocate? SERIOUSLY?

OlafTheTroll said:

I guess a devil's advocate would be trying to make a convincing case. Assuming that you're serious about this and not just trolling, your attempt can only be classified as EPIC FAIL.

I actually have a dark suspicion that the motives for the mild verdict might have been political more than anything else.

The Queensland government will now review all criminal sentences in Cape York communities from the past two years.

Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley did not record convictions against six teenagers over the 2005 gang rape of a 10-year-old girl at the indigenous Aurukun community on Cape York.

Three others were given suspended sentences.

Premier Anna Bligh said she was concerned the sentence could be part of a trend in the region.

She said Attorney-General Kerry Shine today had met with Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare for urgent advice on extending the appeal period and to discuss the likely success of an appeal.

Mr Shine also had decided to review other sentences in the region, Ms Bligh said.

"I want to satisfy myself that the people of Cape York, and the people who live in remote indigenous communities, are receiving the same level of justice as we can expect in any other community in Queensland," Ms Bligh told reporters in Brisbane today.

"The nature of the sentences in this case are so far from community expectations I have to say I am alarmed, and I am not prepared to just write this off as an unusual one-off case.

"I do want to satisfy myself that this is not part of a broader sentencing trend that reflects a lower standard for those communities."

Ms Bligh said she also was concerned the system had failed to bring the case to the attention of Mr Shine earlier, but she did not support calls to sack Ms Clare or Ms Bradley.

Formus said:
2 things could have gone into this. Firstly, the girl does appear to have wanted the sex, and while it can be argued that 10-year-olds can't make decisions like that as well as older people, it can never be explicitly proven. If she was reasoned, not inebriated, etc, then the fact that this was consensual goes a long way. I personally am not a fan of the straight-to-jail statutory rape punishments because so much statutory rape is consensual, and is not actually "rape" by its barest, most connotative definition. 10 years old may be pushing the envelope, but the spectre of consensuality is enough for me to step back and be more reasonable about the punishment if I'm a judge.

Secondly, it's much better for young sex offenders to be rehabilitated with a stern hand and encouragement than it is for them to be stuffed into prison with a bunch of murderers and hardasses. After all, they're still kids, and they're still in their formative years when behavioral patterns are most easily malleable. I think the second point is much easier to argue than the first, and is probably why they were given probation in the first place.

BlastProcessing said:

You get the fuck away from that term and you fucking never, ever use it again. You have clearly shown that you are incapable of using it responsibly, and I won't have your hamhanded backpedaling casting aspersions on a perfectly good debate technique.

Formus said:
2 things could have gone into this. Firstly, the girl does appear to have wanted the sex, and while it can be argued that 10-year-olds can't make decisions like that as well as older people, it can never be explicitly proven. If she was reasoned, not inebriated, etc, then the fact that this was consensual goes a long way. I personally am not a fan of the straight-to-jail statutory rape punishments because so much statutory rape is consensual, and is not actually "rape" by its barest, most connotative definition. 10 years old may be pushing the envelope, but the spectre of consensuality is enough for me to step back and be more reasonable about the punishment if I'm a judge.

Secondly, it's much better for young sex offenders to be rehabilitated with a stern hand and encouragement than it is for them to be stuffed into prison with a bunch of murderers and hardasses. After all, they're still kids, and they're still in their formative years when behavioral patterns are most easily malleable. I think the second point is much easier to argue than the first, and is probably why they were given probation in the first place.