BLACKBIRD LEYS MAN KEITH FENN SENTENCED FOR RAPE OF 10-YEAR-OLD IN OXFORD

In October 2007, a disturbing case involving a young girl and a local man from Blackbird Leys, Oxford, drew significant attention from the judicial system. Keith Fenn, aged 24, was convicted of heinous sexual offenses against a ten-year-old girl, leading to a substantial legal response that underscored the severity of his crimes.

Initially, Fenn was sentenced to two years in prison at Oxford Crown Court in June, after he pleaded guilty to two counts of rape. The sentence was handed down by Judge Julian Hall, who considered the facts of the case and Fenn's guilty plea. Due to the time Fenn had already spent in custody while awaiting sentencing, his official release date was set for October 19. However, the case did not end there, as the Attorney General later intervened, arguing that the original sentence was unduly lenient and did not reflect the gravity of the offense.

Subsequently, the Court of Appeal was asked to review the case. Three judges—Lord Justice Latham, Mr. Justice Stanley Burnton, and Mr. Justice Pitchford—examined the circumstances and the legal implications of the case. During the hearing, Fenn’s legal representatives claimed that he genuinely believed the girl was 16 years old, a point that was considered in the initial sentencing. Nonetheless, the appellate judges found the original sentence to be insufficient given the nature of the crime and the law.

In their ruling, the judges determined that if Fenn had not pleaded guilty, the appropriate sentence would have been at least six years in prison. Taking into account his guilty plea and the credit he deserved for his cooperation, the judges decided to double his sentence, setting it at four years. Lord Justice Latham emphasized that the case raised complex questions about how the justice system should handle cases where young girls under 13 appear to consent to sexual activity and where the accused genuinely believe the victim is older than she is. The law clearly states that children under 13 cannot legally consent to any sexual activity, making Fenn’s crimes absolute offenses.

Fenn’s victim was described as a very vulnerable and significantly damaged ten-year-old girl who was in local authority care at the time of the assault. Although her academic abilities were comparable to an eight-year-old, she was physically tall and mature for her age, capable of passing for someone much older. Her appearance and manner of dress, including the pink lace underwear and thong her grandparents had given her on the day she met Fenn, further disguised her true age. That evening, she ran away from home and encountered Fenn and another man sitting on a bench, drinking beer. She approached them asking for a cigarette and falsely claimed to be 16, saying she had been thrown out by her boyfriend.

Fenn took her to a recreation ground where he engaged in sexual activity with her. The encounter was particularly traumatic for the young girl, as she was a virgin and experienced significant pain during their sexual act. She later told police, “I know I shouldn’t have done, but I did. My head was in two different places at the time. One was in go, and one was in turn-back. Three-quarters of it was go.” When questioned about whether she consented, she admitted she was unsure but believed Fenn probably thought she was willing. The judge and the appellate court, however, highlighted that Fenn’s actions were opportunistic and driven by a desire for sexual gratification, disregarding her true age and vulnerability.

Lord Justice Latham pointed out that Fenn’s case exemplified the need for significant sentences in cases involving young girls who are under 13 but appear to consent, especially when the offender genuinely believes the victim is older. The law categorically states that children under 13 cannot consent, and the offense is considered absolute. The fact that Fenn did not use a condom and that the girl was a virgin added to the aggravating factors of the case. Ultimately, the court concluded that a six-year sentence would have been appropriate without the guilty plea, but given Fenn’s cooperation, the sentence was reduced to four years, reflecting the seriousness of his crimes and the need for justice for the young victim.