That a man who raped a 12-year old child has walked free is an utter disgrace
Daniel Cieslak met a 12-year old child in a taxi queue in Edinburgh city centre at 4am on 31st July 2015. He took her to a friend’s flat, had sexual intercourse with her and on being arrested “became distressed” and told detectives he had been led to believe she was 16.
On the 17th March, Cieslak, a Polish born, 21-year old student at Napier University, pleaded guilty to rape but was shockingly discharged without sentence and without requirement to sign the sex offenders’ register at the High Court in Glasgow.
Two stories to keep beside you
The appeal of Assange
As Julian Assange is granted the right to appeal against an arrest warrant for an alleged rape, Matthew Steeples examines the high profile individuals who have visited him during his time at the Embassy of Ecuador in London
The Troubles of Tony
Tony Blair speaks for many in his latest essay but he remains the wrong man to take Britain back to the centre; where is the individual to rid of us the ‘Wheat Field Wanderer’ hiding? Tony Blair increasingly says the right things. He remains, however, wholly unsuitable to be the figure to deliver what […]
The judge in the case, Lady Scott, took what she described as the “wholly exceptional” decision to “discharge [Cieslak] absolutely” despite the fact that she accepted that a victim under 13 years is “deemed incapable of consent”. She remarked: “Whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older”.
That Daniel Cieslak escaped punishment is an utter disgrace. It is true that the girl he raped lied to him and told him she was far older than her years, but that he claimed he did not know the true age of what essentially is a child seems a little far-fetched. In response, Isabelle Kerr, manager of Glasgow’s Rape Crisis Centre told The Scottish Sun:
“The law really can’t be any clearer. If someone is under the age of 16 they cannot give consent – therefore a 12-year old is not able to consent”.
“It’s a concern to be talking about someone of that age as an ‘active participant’. It’s going down the road of victim blaming, something we’ve been working to tackle”.
“I would be concerned that young women might be deterred from reporting rape if they feel they are not going to be believed or not taken seriously”.
Whilst Lady Scott may be of the view that “justice [has been] best served” by her judgment, we agree with those who say that she got it wrong. That Daniel Cieslak walked free is entirely wrong and that a website named Tabloid Corrections claimed that he is an “innocent man” is even worse. As with the case of the convicted but not jailed paedophile Andrew Picard, all this result does is to bring shame on Britain’s legal system.
Readers have their say
12 comments
Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He didn’t know her age, she lied and you attack him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This little minx should be prosecuted for the distress she caused to an innocent man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lock her up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And charge her family the costs!!!!!!!!!!!
He thought she was 16 years old, the judge gives him the benefit of the doubt, why do the UK law consider 16-17 years olds in custody or remand who committed crimes, strange why the law consider them to be children who require safeguarding??? But in the community any Dick and Harry can shag them because there they are deemed capable of informed consent as adults? I have no faith in UK judicial System and their Judges, and UK law does not make sense, of course it is made up of Liberal double standards!!! Although he misjudged her age, it is still rape with an under aged minor. A total disregard for public safety!!!!!! Miscarriage of justice!! Is this Liberal justice??????
A question comes to my mind: What were her parents doing allowing her out in the first place?
Yes, 4am…at a bus stop?
there trying to make some money most likely
This is such a shocking outcome. Lady Scott must be on drugs!
He has the look of smugness of a man who just got away with what he did.
This item deserves a whole 2000 word essay in reply. Short version – you’re absolutely right, Matthew.
British Justice will always be a two tiered system. It’s just the way it is and always will be.
In the words of a barrister friend, “Even if Lady Scott thought the girl had been gagging for it, she’s still a child and needed the court’s protection”. Sums it up in one sentence, doesn’t it, Matthew?
It sounds like in some places in the UK people now can get away with murder or rape. Deeply shocking verdict and this perverted judge should be fired and prosecuted . The reasoning she gave is breaching the law let alone being morally depraved, Is she actually giving a Licence to Rape?
It was not rape-rape says, Whoopi Goldberg defending Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13 year old girl, but in her defence Whoopi is not a Crown Court Judge. Paedophile defenders and child sex abusers use the same defence to defend and excuse their actions they divert the blame to the parents of the underage victim and the victim, arguing the victim was a willing slut who wanted the action so badly, suggesting the underage victim was so sexually aroused that the adult was seduced and actually the victim. Lady Scott has a very twisted moral compass. An under-aged girl even if promiscuous deserve protection from the law not to be abused by adult predators.