Adam Hulin escapes jail for oral rape – another AG Ref?

Adam Hulin 5


We were directed towards the case of Adam Hulin, a 19 year old man who received a 12 month Community Order for rape and assault by penetration on 24th April 2014, so we thought we would have a quick look.

The facts are a bit hazy. We know that this was in 2012 when Mr Hulin would probably have been 17 (we don’t know his date of birth however). There was one victim who would have been aged under 13, but we know no more than that.

There were originally three allegations – oral rape and assault by penetration, to which there was a guilty plea. There was then a trial for a further allegation of vaginal rape during which the jury was discharged from giving a verdict and there was a Newton hearing. A Newton hearing essentially a trial on a factual point. There is no jury and the decision is made by the judge. The defendant may give evidence but does not need to. The defendant It is not clear what triggered this, or what was actually happening.

We understand that there have already been calls for an AG Reference.


On the face of it, this seems a very low sentence. The adult guidelines will apply as Mr Hulin was aged over 18 at the time of sentence.

The guidelines for rape start at p27 and for assault by penetration at p33.

And at that point, we draw a blank as we have no idea what the facts of the case are … We can see that the lowest starting point is 8 years with a range of 6-11 years for rape (the law makes no distinction between sentencing for oral, anal or vaginal rape) and 4 years with a range of 2-6 years for assault by penetration.

One can see from that that the sentence passed is miles below the guidelines. Even taking the lowest point in the range and giving full credit for the plea of guilty, that would be a sentence of 4 years.


So, has the Judge got it wrong? Not necessarily. Sentencing is supposed to be an art, not a science. We have seen plenty of cases where Courts have gone outside of the guidelines (above and below) for good reasons, and that is something to be encouraged in the right sort of case.

Was this the right sort of case to pass a non-custodial sentence? We don’t know as we don’t know the facts. Let’s wait and see if there is an AG Ref.

This entry was posted in In the news on by .

About Dan Bunting

I'm a lawyer who works for myself. Legal geek, maths freak, general dullard and jack of all trades. Here’s a few views on law and occasional musings on life. Usual caveats about not relying on anything I say etc applies.

14 thoughts on “Adam Hulin escapes jail for oral rape – another AG Ref?

  1. Andrew

    I do not think I will be the only one saying that inserting your organ of generation by force into any of the bodily orifices of another must be a ticket to Her Majesty’s immediate hospitality.

  2. James

    He did not use force, the word rape is used widely and simply means sexual activity with anyone under 16
    The court states she lied about her age and fully consented to it

    1. Liberte, Egalitie, Sororite

      “He did not use force” oh so that’s okay then, absence of force makes rape acceptable. Wrong. Rape is rape. The age of consent is there to protect the under 16’s from predatory paedophile rapists who hunt them down. “I thought she was 16” is the usual rubbish spouted by the predatory to cover their dark deeds (“I knew she was 13 but I wanted to fuck a child doesn’t sound good in court or anywhere)” you will note it also neatly abdicates the wrongdoer of any responsibility WHATOSVER for their actions and attempts instead to shift the blame for what THEY did onto their victim.

    2. Liberte, Egalitie, Sororite

      “The victim’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said her daughter has been traumatised by the sex attack and described the sentence as “absolutely disgusting”.

      She said: “He should have been sent to prison. He’s now free. They’ve tried to paint him as some sort of pillar of society.

      “He’s got to pay for his consequences. You can’t get away with what he’s done and how he went about doing it.

      “I have no faith in the legal system whatsoever.”

  3. James

    That’s not fact…. That is what her mother states, he also says “she lied about her age” it was proven in court she lied about her age, and was proven she consented, there was evidence she lied, the judge was shown photos of the girl and agreed she looked older than 16

    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      That excuses rape does it – how she looked, “asking for it” by virtue of looking older than 12, summon Mother Nature to the dock to explain how she could allow this. Tosh. A child betrays themselves, as a child, every time they open their mouth as any semi functioning adult will tell you. He needs to take responsibility for what he did to a child. And I can see no where it was ‘proven in court’ that she did say this other than that the rapist said so, & “well he would say that wouldn’t he, or that he never knew her actual age.

  4. Andrew

    When the girl is under 13 any mistake on the defendant’s part is irrelevant. That’s a much more serious offence.

    When she is 13-15 (and both ages are in the nature of things arbitrary), and she “consented” – by which I mean, for the avoidance of doubt, that her state of mind was what would have been consent if she were old enough to consent, and he was in genuine error – then that is a defence.

    The error may come from what she said – or from her going to a bar with him. You certainly cannot always guess the age of a fifteener. The “mistake” defence was introduced into the law by the Act of 2002, probably out of human rights concerns. It is interesting that not one word was said in either House by the Ministers in charge or anybody else about this important change! It probably leads to fewer acquittals than to decisions not to prosecute in the first place.

    But to get back to this animal who penetrated the mouth of a girl under 13 – once again, L-E-S, we are not going to disagree. He pleaded, and should get the discount, and of course he falls to be sentenced as a lad of 17. But down he must go. Promising athlete or not.

    Not sure why the Grauniad told us how he dressed for court, though . . .

  5. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

    I despair of a legal system which says how a rape victim looked can be used as a defence for rape. Looking older or younger than one’s age especially as a teenager or younger is outside of one’s control, hormones, puberty and genetics too play a part. Look at who gets to say the victim didn’t look like a child. Well rapists, judiciary, police officers do and which gender is over represented in rape cases, in the dock that is. Men. That it is even allowed as a defence disgusts and speaks volumes about a misogynistic and patriarchal society. It is another get out of jail free card.

    1. Andrew

      It’s not a defence to rape – only to under-age sex. And then only if a jury – mixed-sex – believes it. Or if a very mixed CPS thinks they would.

      I repeat that this guy’s mistake is irrelevant and I hope he goes down for a long time.

      Polruan thank you for the correction about newspapers.

  6. polruan

    It *was* the Epsom Guardian, Andrew; they may worry more about appearances than the Manchester version. Thank you for these clarifications. The young man may well live to regret the tenor of his comments here and on the EG site, now properly deleted. As a result, however, I am wary of commenting any further in this context.

  7. Pingback: Adam Hulin case referred to the Attorney-General | UK Criminal Law Blog

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