Nicholas Kane Reuben

Posted: April 27, 2014 by Serendipity in Victoria
Tags: , , ,

Judge under fire on teen sex comment

Sarah-Jane Collins
April 3, 2008

A VICTORIAN judge has come under fire for yesterday saying a 13-year-old girl was a “willing party” to sex with a man twice her age.

“(The victim) was a willing party to the sexual activity,” County Court judge William White said when sentencing the man to more than four years’ jail for numerous child-sex offences.

Judge White also said the victim had not submitted a victim impact statement to the court because she was “compliant” and had allowed the man to perform sexual acts on her during a two-month period.

Nicholas Kane Reuben, 28, pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16, one count of creating child pornography, one of using a carriage service for procuring a person under the age of 16 for sex and one count of possessing child pornography.

Legal experts and victims of crime groups criticised the sentence as too lenient and said children under 16 could not legally consent to sex.

Judge White said Reuben had engaged in sexual acts, including oral sex, with the girl between April and May of 2007. He said Reuben photographed her naked and stored the images on his computer.

Reuben’s crimes were discovered when his partner found naked pictures of the girl on his computer and reported the matter to police. He was interviewed and did not answer questions, but during the next two months he was found frequenting Internet chat rooms where he met an undercover policewoman posing as a 14-year-old named “Lisa”.

Reuben offered to buy her a mobile phone and an iPod if she would have sex with him.

Police then seized his computer and discovered 2000 images of child pornography, as well as a DVD with about 100 child-pornography films.

“It is a concern you engaged in this conduct after your interview with the police,” Judge White told Reuben. “You are sexually depraved and perverted.”

He said Reuben’s behaviour was “indicative of a twisted morality”, but believed there was “little risk” of him reoffending. He was sentenced to four years and nine months’ jail, eligible for parole after three years.

Dr Bronwyn Naylor, a senior lecturer in law at Monash University, said it was very unusual for a judge to imply that a child was a willing participant in sex.

“When you’re talking about children under 16, and certainly children under 14, the power difference means that any sort of consent that’s given is really quite problematic.”

She said it would be unusual for a judge to consider whether the child was a willing participant because legally children under 16 could not consent to sex.

Steve Medcraft, of People Against Lenient Sentences, criticised the judge’s decision.

“The old brigade of judges don’t tend to take this type of offending as seriously as a modern-day judge does,” he said.


Join us on Facebook


  1. Simone Patterson says:

    Do you have an offence listed for Kevin John Saunders

    Sent from my iPhone


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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