MARCUS PETRIE FROM DOVER AND NORTHFLEET SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL ACTS WITH 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN MEDWAY
| Red Rose Database
Dover Northfleet Child Sexual Abuser
In August 2014, a serious case involving a young man named Marcus Petrie, originally from Dover and Northfleet, came to light in Maidstone Crown Court. Petrie, then aged 19, was convicted of engaging in sexual activities with a 13-year-old girl from the Medway area, after deceiving her about his true age. The court heard that Petrie’s actions resulted in a sentence of two and a half years in youth custody.
The incident took place during a single encounter at the girl’s home in Medway. According to court proceedings, the girl initiated the sexual contact, which was consensual at the time. The court was informed that the two met in Gravesend the previous year before traveling to her residence. Once there, they ended up in her bedroom, where they began kissing. The girl then pulled down Petrie’s trousers and performed a sexual act on him, while he also touched her intimately.
Prosecutor Paul Jackson explained that the girl believed Petrie was 15 years old, and she later told police that she consented to the activity. However, she eventually discovered that Petrie was actually 19. Upon confronting him, Petrie asked whether she intended to report the incident to the police and threatened to kill himself if she did.
When arrested, Petrie initially denied any sexual contact had occurred. Now aged 20, he admitted to causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, as well as engaging in sexual activity with a child. The court was told that Petrie’s only previous brush with the law involved a reprimand for bicycle theft.
During the hearing, defense lawyer Thomas Daniel argued that Petrie’s appearance and behavior could explain why the girl thought he was only 15. “He does not look his age or necessarily act it,” Mr. Daniel said. He explained that Petrie lied about his age out of embarrassment and expressed remorse for his actions. The defense also highlighted that the girl admitted to initiating the sexual contact and that Petrie’s mother was unaware of the full extent of his wrongdoing, claiming there was no grooming or premeditation involved.
Mr. Daniel requested that the court consider a probation report recommending a suspended sentence, citing concerns that Petrie might struggle to cope in custody. The report also noted his lack of maturity and difficult background as mitigating factors.
However, Judge Charles Macdonald QC emphasized that the law’s primary purpose is to protect children, regardless of the victim’s attitude or consent. “It doesn’t really matter what the complainant’s attitude was throughout,” the judge stated. “There is no consent in law.”
While acknowledging some mitigating circumstances, including Petrie’s good character and remorse, the judge underscored the seriousness of the offense. He pointed out that Petrie’s immaturity and background might have influenced his responsibility, but the law remains firm in safeguarding minors.
Consequently, the judge decided that Petrie’s sentence must be immediate custody. His name will be entered onto the sex offenders’ register indefinitely, and he is barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. Additionally, a sexual offences prevention order was issued to restrict his future conduct.
The incident took place during a single encounter at the girl’s home in Medway. According to court proceedings, the girl initiated the sexual contact, which was consensual at the time. The court was informed that the two met in Gravesend the previous year before traveling to her residence. Once there, they ended up in her bedroom, where they began kissing. The girl then pulled down Petrie’s trousers and performed a sexual act on him, while he also touched her intimately.
Prosecutor Paul Jackson explained that the girl believed Petrie was 15 years old, and she later told police that she consented to the activity. However, she eventually discovered that Petrie was actually 19. Upon confronting him, Petrie asked whether she intended to report the incident to the police and threatened to kill himself if she did.
When arrested, Petrie initially denied any sexual contact had occurred. Now aged 20, he admitted to causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, as well as engaging in sexual activity with a child. The court was told that Petrie’s only previous brush with the law involved a reprimand for bicycle theft.
During the hearing, defense lawyer Thomas Daniel argued that Petrie’s appearance and behavior could explain why the girl thought he was only 15. “He does not look his age or necessarily act it,” Mr. Daniel said. He explained that Petrie lied about his age out of embarrassment and expressed remorse for his actions. The defense also highlighted that the girl admitted to initiating the sexual contact and that Petrie’s mother was unaware of the full extent of his wrongdoing, claiming there was no grooming or premeditation involved.
Mr. Daniel requested that the court consider a probation report recommending a suspended sentence, citing concerns that Petrie might struggle to cope in custody. The report also noted his lack of maturity and difficult background as mitigating factors.
However, Judge Charles Macdonald QC emphasized that the law’s primary purpose is to protect children, regardless of the victim’s attitude or consent. “It doesn’t really matter what the complainant’s attitude was throughout,” the judge stated. “There is no consent in law.”
While acknowledging some mitigating circumstances, including Petrie’s good character and remorse, the judge underscored the seriousness of the offense. He pointed out that Petrie’s immaturity and background might have influenced his responsibility, but the law remains firm in safeguarding minors.
Consequently, the judge decided that Petrie’s sentence must be immediate custody. His name will be entered onto the sex offenders’ register indefinitely, and he is barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. Additionally, a sexual offences prevention order was issued to restrict his future conduct.