Maidstone paedophile who was ‘exploring his sexuality’ avoids jail for abusing boy

[Artaxerxes II]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/m ... r-AA1tMdXn:

A paedophile who was said to be "exploring his sexuality" when he abused a boy has been spared jail.

Harvey Doughty was just 18 when he sent a series of explicit texts to the vulnerable youngster in the lead up to him performing a sex act.

The victim, who cannot be identified, later told police he felt he had no choice but to give in to the teenager's pressure and was left feeling "disgusting".

He also told Maidstone Crown Court that Doughty had become "forceful" and had ignored his plea to stop.

But although it was alleged by the prosecution at Doughty's trial that he "took advantage" of the boy - who it was said had "submitted rather than consented" to the sexual act before making his objection clear as it was being performed - Doughty was cleared of oral rape by the jury.

He had however pleaded guilty ahead of his trial to offences of sexual activity with a child and causing a child to engage in sexual activity in relation to the same incident.

At his sentencing hearing on Thursday (October 31), the court heard how the now 21-year-old's depraved behaviour had affected his victim.

In an impact statement written by the youngster's mother, it was said he had underachieved at school, was left "worried and scared" about seeing his abuser again, and had had an emotional breakdown which led to him disappearing from home and having to be reported to police as a missing person.

His anxiety, she added, was at an "uncontrollable level", with incidents of self-harm.

But having faced a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, Doughty's barrister Simeon Wallis argued that "a great deal of prominence" could be given to rehabilitation when balancing it with public protection and punishment in the sentencing exercise.

‘He made a grave error, a sustained error, while exploring his sexuality as an 18-year-old...’
He also told the court that Doughty lacked "sexual preoccupation" and "laboured" under a number of difficulties, including low IQ.

"He knows what he did was wrong, was harmful, and he regrets it immensely. He is ashamed of what happened, is sorry, and it is his hope that with time and the completion of these proceedings, the burden on (his victim) begins to ease," Mr Wallis told the court.

"He was 18, inexperienced, confused and behaved, the court may think, recklessly."

The barrister also explained that in the three years since, Doughty had "withdrawn in the sense of his own identity" and would need to do a great deal of work not to just "deny himself".

But Mr Wallis added that showed "real insight" into his offending behaviour.

"It is the most shameful, embarrassing and damaging thing he has done," he said. "He made a grave error, a sustained error, while exploring his sexuality as an 18-year-old."

At trial, prosecutor Martin Yale told jurors that in early 2022 Doughty and the young boy had exchanged a number of texts.

Doughty initially asked if he could tell him "a secret" before revealing he thought he was bisexual.

The messages soon became explicit, with Doughty making remarks about what he would do to the youngster and suggesting they had sex.

At first, the victim questioned the seriousness of what was being said to him, said Mr Yale, and repeatedly told Doughty how old he was.

But Doughty simply replied "No one has to know" and continued to "reassure" him when the boy asked what would happen if someone found out, added the prosecutor.

Further messages then led to the victim "giving in", it was alleged at trial.

In a video recorded interview with police played in court, the boy described how he initially took Doughty's messages about wanting sex "quite lightly", and thought a comment of "age was just a number" was simply a joke.

But he said that having given "various excuses" to Doughty, he felt he "had no choice" but to perform the sex act.

The boy also claimed that when he asked Doughty to stop, he was cruelly told "it wasn't that bad and to deal with it".

He was said to have been "extremely upset" when he confided in family and friends that he thought he had been raped, and he later described the encounter to police as "gross".

Doughty, of Knott Court, Maidstone, was arrested and gave a 'No comment' interview.

Although he was subsequently acquitted of the more serious charge of rape, Mr Yale told the court that by reason of his guilty pleas to the two sexual activity offences, there was "no doubt" that Doughty had "encouraged it and taken part in it".

Doughty was released on bail until his sentencing hearing, which was adjourned for probation and psychology reports.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge, Recorder Matthew McDonagh, had told Doughty that notwithstanding the jury's not guilty verdict, he "needed to understand" the seriousness of the charges he had admitted and that "substantial sentences" could be imposed.

But having then adjourned Thursday's sentencing hearing overnight to consider the appropriate punishment, Doughty returned to court on Friday (November 1) where he was given an 18-month jail term suspended for two years.

He must also take part in an accredited sex offender programme run by the probation service as well as 30 rehabilitation activity requirement sessions, and sign on the sex offender register.

[Jim Burton]

Age of victim not given, peer pressure indicated.

It's a tricky one for the system when homophobia is indicated in compliant victimhood. A crime has been committed, but an alternative narrative must be constructed to cover their behavior, and reaction. That narrative must by necessity avoid implying that the victim is homophobic.

It is right that we don't throw such individuals in jail. If every unhappy coincidence where an educationally subnormal person talked someone who happened to be underage into sex were heavily punished, we would effectively be punishing the will to manipulate a person into sex if you could. This would be unsupportable, IMO, since too many such attempts are made and rebuffed every day; these idiots are all over dating apps and probably don't even understand the law.