Jade Hatt avoids jail a second time

As if anyone were surprised:

Jade Hatt, 21, was given a six-month suspended sentence after she admitting having sexual deintercourse with the 11-year-old.

The decision sparked outrage and Attorney General Jeremy Wright, QC, referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

But three judges agreed yesterday that the sentence was not “unduly lenient”.

Right. So it is lenient. Hatt is getting a slap on the wrist, but deservedly so.

What nonsense.

Hatt raped the boy she was supposed to care for and she gets away with it because the boy’s father claimed his son is “sex mad.” Never mind the problems the abuse caused the boy:

They have not taken into account the impact this has had on my son. He is not eating properly, he can’t go to school and he can’t sleep properly.

No, Hatt deserves lencincy. So what possible explanation did the judges have for giving Hatt a second slap on the wrist?

Mr Justice Treacy, Mrs Justice Simler and Judge John Wait dismissed the Attorney General’s application.

“She had life experiences that had affected her emotional development and left her craving intimacy,” said Mr Justice Treacy.

“However, by admitting her guilt she knew what she was doing was wrong. She had given in to her impulses.”

Yes, course. Hatt knows what she did was wrong. It did not stop her from doing it, but know she knows it is wrong now, so she gets a pass. And this decision to let her walk without any punishment has nothing to do with Hatt being female or looking like a child herself. That is pure coincidence.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that even the Attorney General found the original sentence unduly lenient. So how can Hatt’s admittance of guilt, which was part if the original sentence, be sufficent reason to let her go unpunished? Was that not the thing the court was supposed to review?

There is no way the Court of Appeal would have reached this decision with this level of public outrage if the victim were female. This case is one of the clearest examples of the double standard male victims deal with. It is disgusting and send a message to female offenders, and Hatt, that if they prey on boys and claim the boys are ” sex mad” they will face no punishment.

Nevertheless, thank you, United Kingdom, for showing how little you care about your boys.

7 thoughts on “Jade Hatt avoids jail a second time

  1. Pingback: Jade Hatt (21-year-old babysitter who had sexual intercourse with an 11-year-old boy) avoids jail a second time | Justice for Men & Boys

  2. Her experiences affected her emotional development just enough to make her think it was okay to have sex with this boy, but apparently it didn’t hurt her emotional development enough to make any of the judges question what she was doing babysitting in the first place.

    It was a very specific amount of emotional stunting, apparently.

  3. As a UK citizen, the last sentence (in my experience) has some surprising weight to it (especially when reflecting on my own past experiences).

  4. Well, just to illustrate the double-standard more:


    This is Ireland, which you cover in another post and ask why they don’t care about male victims? I honestly think that in some ways GB and Ireland are probably the world leaders in thinking their men are less than human or less than their women in any case. Note all the talk of ‘defilement’. You’d never see language like that used if the sexes were reversed. This is a young woman, too, not an eleven year old child.

    In the state of Maryland we actually have people convicted of manslaughter and violent stranger rapists serving less time than this man.

    Anyway, I’m disgusted. This woman should have served some time, certainly more than this poor fireman.

  5. ““She had life experiences that had affected her emotional development and left her craving intimacy,” said Mr Justice Treacy.”

    For God’s sake – what about bank robbers who have had life experiences that affect their financial development and leave them craving money? Just because there are *reasons* you want something, that makes it ok to just *take* it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s