10/05/2019
Samuel Zammit has been jailed for nine years at the High Court in Edinburgh for a series of sexual and violent assaults.
Nine years might seem an appropriate sentence for the sort of sexual predator who is found guilty of molesting one or two women.
But this is a monster; who raped a 24 year old woman on two separate occasions, repeatedly punched the same woman in the stomach when she was pregnant and, having barricaded children in a bedroom, raped one eight-year-old and tried to rape a second eight-year-old.
The woman who was assaulted whilst pregnant, lost her baby within weeks of the assault.
A sentence of nine years seems wholly inadequate for someone who has committed such disgusting crimes, left victims with a lifetime of torment and, in all probability, is guilty of causing the death of an unborn child.
The judge apparently assessed Zammit as posing a high risk of sexual violence against adult women, as well as a medium risk to children. Zammit, let's remember, barricaded himself in a bedroom, raped an eight year old and attempted to rape another eight year old.
Quite how such a monster could be considered 'only' of medium risk to children is a mystery.
The judge in this case was Lady Scott (Margaret Elizabeth Scott), who has faced criticism fr her handling of a couple of previous rape trials.
In 2013, Lady Scott appeared to praise a man convicted of a number of incidences of rape, saying he had overcome his difficult background and fund success in running a business. The Scottish Conservative James Lamont pointed out that, "plenty of people have had tough lives ... but don’t rape anyone."
Then, in 2017, she granted an absolute discharge for a man who had confessed to the rape of a 12-year old girl. Scottish law, as is the case in other parts of the UK, states that an individual under the age of 13 is considered incapable of giving consent to sexual activity in any circumstance. Lady Scott suggested that the victim was not distressed, and that all eyewitnesses believed her to be over 16. This ignores the fact that a 12-year-old has no legal capacity to consent, and therefore sexual activity with them is always illegal. It is an adult's responsibility to ensure that their partner is capable of giving consent, which a 12-year old cannot do. It is also noteworthy that the child subsequently claimed to have been unconscious at the time of the attack, so was unable to provide consent even if she was old enough.
These cases would tend to suggest that Lord Scott is not qualified to preside over cases of rape or sexual assault.
In any event, it should be clear that the sentence given to Samuel Zammit should be reviewed, and increased substantially.
Comments