https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/01/woman-22-spared-jail-sex-boy-14-judge-said-relationship-was-mutual-12926412/

22 year old woman had sex with a 14 year old boy. She has avoided any custodial sentence. She is on the register for 5 years and has a 3 year community order as due to the case she lost her job so the judge thinks she has been punished enough...

Your question is legitimate.

just shows the lack of consistency the courts have.
I read about some guy in his 20s collected around 50,000 images, most in Cat A. Judge ruled being brought to court, the disgrace and humiliation of being named and shamed was punishment enough also. I think he got 5 years on the SHPO and SOR. Yet people with only a handful get worse treatment. So it would seem age plays a major role as well despite being considered an adult.

I had less than 300, in a variety of categories. All stamped from the same date and the police even stated they were in an inaccessible portion of my hard drive so I couldn't access them even if I wanted to. They also strongly suspected the files (totaling less than 100MB) came down with another torrent file I downloaded.

You'd think that was enough mitigation for them to think "Hold on, maybe this wasn't intentional".

• 120hrs community payback order
• 3 years subject to the notification requirements
• Take part in the Moving Forward, Making Changes program

Thing is, they do not see the fact that when you delete something its because you simply do not want it. Its more to do with the fact that you deleted evidence as to avoid being caught. It really makes little sense the logic police have. Always twisting what is said and done so they get better results.

I am also in my 30's and I was claimed to have collected around the same number as yourself only they made further claims my offence dates back over 10 years ago which is simply not true. From what I can make out based on the information I have. They are using the earliest file created to determine the start date of my offence. I have submitted an FOI regarding how police use this information to determine when an offence started from which I should be getting a response soon.

In the end I got a 10 year order both on SOR and SHPO, yet those who do far worse get better treatment

Given mine were all from the same date I tried to give an anecdote which was along the lines of:

Say you really wanted to download a Metallica album, you find it on a torrent website all labelled up as Metallica's latest album. You download it and you find it's actually Ariana Grande. Are you now an Ariana Grande fan?

They didn't think the music analogy worked so I changed it:

Okay, you really like Riley Reid. You download a movie of hers. Turns out it is gay pornography. Are you a homosexual now?

I felt it was a relevant point to make but I think it just pissed them off a bit.

I think you made an excellent point, one of which the police will not understand because in their eyes everyone is guilty of something.

Coincidentally, I did meet someone on Horizon course with almost exactly the same thing and roles reversed and he got a similar sentence. I think it's to do with malicious intent and mutual agreement. Underage is wrong yes, but I'm assuming there was no malicious intent against the victim as it was consensual but the big problem is that they should have known better and who is to say how that child will be affected in the future after what happened... so that's why the offender can't go unpunished, but equally, the intent/mindset is different to, for example, a person specifically looking for someone underage (I'm assuming this didn't happen). However, no SHPO by the looks of it.......

As an aside, having three pictures of her in that story is uncalled for because of 'how she looks' let's say... they've exploited her with three pictures of the same thing - her walking out of court. Pathetic.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

The nature of the relationship plays a big part. This is from the Canadian law:

A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:

• their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach
• the young person is dependent on their sexual partner, for example for care or support
• the relationship between the young person and their sexual partner is exploitative

The following factors may be taken into account when determining whether a relationship is exploitative of the young person:

• the young person's age
• the age difference between the young person and their partner
• how the relationship developed (for example, quickly, secretly, or over the internet)
• whether the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person

Has she got away with a lesser sentence than if a man were to commit the same crime? In my opinion yes, undoubtedly. A custodial sentence is almost guaranteed for such offences.
However judgement has been passed by the court and it is not my place to question this judgement. 

The article states that the she was described in the court as "young for her age" is " a lady who presents with a maturity level much younger than her years" and "has her own vulnerabilities". Surely this is the same make-up of a female who was herself more prone to sexual abuse as a minor and going forward is more likely to be abused as an adult, especially given the nature of her recent conviction. In essence by publishing these details the Metro has made an already vulnerable young woman more vulnerable but I doubt the editor and readership view it this way. They didn't go so far as to publish her new address but that will be little to no consolation for her given the fact that they published her photo, she looks like a totally normal woman in her early 20's but it will be only a matter of time before she is recognized and picked out in her new local area given the level of media coverage.

As somebody who has also sat on the wrong side of the fence in the past I feel sorry for her. 22 is no age. Her offence will become spent in 4 years but her conviction will stick with her for life. I imagine she will be barred from working with children and she is likely to have an up-hill struggle with SS should she have children of her own regardless of the progress she makes during the reform program she will undertake during her community order. That said I do not believe she has a genuine interest in sexually abusing minors anyway.

So yes I feel sorry for her, I hope she is able to get the help and support she needs to move on with her life. If she was to post on this forum tomorrow I would hope she is made welcome by this open-minded community.