IT is vital that the Crown appeals the absolute discharge given by the judge, Lady Scott, to Daniel Cieslak who raped a 12-year-old girl (“Outcry as man who raped girl, 12, walks free”, The Herald, December 18). Vital too that the Scottish Government speaks out strongly. Otherwise, the implications are serious and far-reaching.

This sentence and the judge’s remarks give the green light to anyone to have sex with a child under 13, by claiming that they looked over 16. This is despite consent (which must be informed consent) being legally impossible under any circumstances for children under 13. Lady Scott is reported to say: "Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.” Thus, though there could not be consent, there was. Black is white, and white is black.

Secondly, an investigation should be launched into whether two girls of 12 and 13, wandering alone in Edinburgh city centre in the small hours, one of whom immediately shows sexualised behaviour with a stranger in a taxi then has sex with him, were already vulnerable prior victims of sexual abuse, who deserved particular protection from authorities and courts. Because children of that age with such behaviours almost invariably are. Were they already known to anyone who should have been protecting them?

Children around that age with those behaviours were ignored and decried as “little slags” or “child prostitutes” by police and social services in countless, brutal child sexual exploitation cases in England. The sort of children judged by Lady Scott to have “no concerns, and there was no suggestion of her being distressed". If we allow them to be dismissed as “willing participants”, we surely also contradict both Scotland’s child protection policies and its National Plan to counter child sexual exploitation. I was adviser to the parliamentary committee whose report led to this plan.

In the (English) Neil Wilson case in 2013, appeal judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions strongly criticised a judge who leniently treated the abuser of a vulnerable 13-year-old, and said the girl was a predator and “egging you on”. Appeal judges made the highly important statement: “An under-age person who encourages sexual relations with her needs more protection, not less. The Attorney General is therefore right to say that the victim's vulnerability was an aggravating, rather than a mitigating feature”.

It is time for such unequivocal statements – and for action – north of the Border.

Sarah Nelson,

Seacraig Court, Newport on Tay, Fife.