About This Case

The purpose of this blog to draw attention to the paltry sentence handed down to Adam Hulin – who recently plead guilty to the oral rape and penetration of a 12 year old girl.

This case highlights many of the cultural assumptions which consistently result in the legal system failing to deliver justice to women and girls for the violence they experience at the hands of men.

The details of the case are given below. If you would like to join our efforts to pressure the Attorney General to reconsider the sentencing in this case, you can find the details of how to do so here. We will also be publishing letters sent to the AG on this site, if you would like your letter to be added, or if you would like to make a statement about your thoughts on this case, I can be contacted using the form here.


The Basic Facts of the Case:

In March 2014, Adam Hulin, a 19 year old from Headley, appeared in Guilford Crown Court charged with three counts of sexual assault against a young girl.

The charges were oral rape, assault by penetration, and vaginal rape, and relate to an event in December 2012, when Hulin was 18 and the complainant 12 years old.

Hulin pleaded not guilty to the charge of vaginal rape, and the judge, Recorder George Lawson-Rogers, conducting a Newton hearing regarding this charge. A Newton hearing is a trial on a factual point, and is conducted by the judge in closed session, without a jury. It is unclear exactly what happened in this session, but the rape charge was subsequently dropped and will ‘remain on file.’ According to the complainant’s mother, as reported here “the jury was dismissed in the rape trial after inadmissible evidence, from a police interview conducted with her daughter, was read out in the courtroom.”

Hulin pleaded guilty to the charges of oral rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration. He was sentenced on Wednesday April 23rd to 100 hours of community service, and is required to attend six sessions of counseling. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of 60 pounds.

Sentencing the defendant the judge said:

“I can’t dismiss the contention that what happened was not by mutual consent, so that is the basis on which the defendant is to be sentenced.”

“Rape is a very serious offence but it can cover a great number of different circumstances. When it comes to someone of (the complainant’s) age the law is there not simply to prevent somebody of the defendant’s age from abusing them, but also to protect children from themselves.”

“This defendant is 19 and there is much to be said in his favour. He has clear prospects for the future and he is pursuing these at this time.”

“I consider this the appropriate disposal. I certainly wouldn’t want to do anything which would prejudice his future career.”


 The Case for the Prosecution:

According to the prosecutor, Alan Gardner:

“In the middle of 2012, Hulin added the girl as a friend on social media site Facebook. During conversations they had on Facebook, he asked what school year she was in and, after answering she was in Year 7, his response was ‘cute’. It is the prosecution’s case that Hulin was well aware of her age.”

In December 2012, Hulin took the girl and a friend for a drive around Leatherhead, and the next day invited her to come for a drive on her own.

After Hulin picked her up that evening, they drove to the Co-operative shop in Bookham High Street where he bought a can of Fanta and a bottle of vodka.

“He said not to worry because she would not taste the alcohol mixed in with the Fanta….We suggest Hulin bought the alcohol to get her drunk and make her compliant to sexual contact.”

After giving the girl “six to seven” shots of vodka in the car park of Chrystie Recreation Ground, they then drove to Polesden Lacey, as it was “dark and no one would see her drinking”.

“She made it quite clear she did not consent to the sexual contact,” added Mr Gardner. “But her defence was significantly compromised by the alcohol.”

The girl informed her family of the event the following day.


According to the complainant’s testimony, in a video of a police interview shown in court:

“I trusted him because he did not seem weird in any way and seemed nice.”

“He acted completely different to what I thought he would.”

“I thought he saw me as a little sister but now I think he thought he could take advantage of me.”


According to the complainant’s mother, interviewed in The Epsom Guardian following the sentencing:

“He’s lying about not knowing how old she was. He asked her on Facebook what [school] year she was in. When she said year seven, he replied with ‘that’s cute’.”

“He knew how old she was when he plied her with alcohol.”

“She didn’t see him as a threat. There’s no way she looked 17 or 18 when she was 12.”


The Case for the Defence:

The defense case seems to consist of two planks:

1. That there was no coercion and that, therefore, the complainant consented.

According to the Richard McConaghy, arguing for the defence, Hulin had believed himself to be engaging in ““what most people would ordinarily define as regular sexual activity”.

While passing down the sentence the judge noted:

“I can’t dismiss the contention that what happened was not by mutual consent, so that is the basis on which the defendant is to be sentenced.”

According to comments published in The Epsom Guardian after sentencing, Hulin maintains that:

“[I]t was proven on court that she fully consented to the acts, there was no “rape” in my eyes at the time (me being a young, immature boy) believed this to be full lawful activity.”

In a comment left on this article here, someone who appears to be Adam Hulin argues:

“did not use any form of force
She fully consented and lied about her age”

Which brings us to the second plank of the defence…


2. That the defendant had a reasonable belief that the complainant was over 16.

When Hulin handed himself in to Reigate police station he told them about the encounter, but apparently said that he thought she was aged 16.

The rape charge was dismissed – according to one source because the judge accepted Hulin’s assertion that the complainant lied about her age.

However, according to the complainant’s mother, the dismissal was due to ‘inadmissible evidence’ given in her daughter’s police interviews, and for the following comments to make sense, it would seem that this must have led the judge to accept that the complainant consented to the activity, and that the crime pertained only to the age of the complainant.

Hulin was finally sentenced for oral rape and penetration of a child – because the complainant was 12 at the time of the alleged assault.

For the defence, Richard McConaghy argued:

“This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law.”

“It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all.”

The judge, Recorder George Lawson-Rogers, is reported to have said: “Once upon a time it wouldn’t have been rape at all.”


Responses to the Sentence:

Adam Hulin, reported in The Epson Guardian:

“What is written is not true. This is a case of headline grabbing.”

“The facts are; I was lied to, about the girls age, she told me she was 16, she got her cousin to confirm that if I asked her, it was proven in court I was lied to and mislead to the girls age.”

“I cannot tell you her name or show you what she looks like, but I can tell you that you could not in anyway separate her from a 17/18 year old. “

“Secondly it was proven on court that she fully consented to the acts, there was no “rape” in my eyes at the time (me being a young, immature boy) believed this to be full lawful activity.”

“I wish this never happened, it should never have happened, but after she went bragging to her friends about what she had for upto, her mother found out and she then cried wolf, it’s been a living nightmare.”

According to this report, he is also “alleging that she is now pregnant with an older boy.”


The complainant’s mother, also reported in The Epsom Guardian:

“And she is not pregnant. I am appalled that he was able to slander my daughter in this way.”

“The outcome was absolutely ridiculous.”

“He’s actually just got away with a slap on the wrist.”

“It’s absolutely disgusting that the judge didn’t take into account the victim’s side of it.”

“He should have been sent to prison. He’s now free. He’s free now to hamper her future even more and is feeding people more lies.”

“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. The way the judge has looked as it is ‘boys will be boys’ and that we need to take into account that he handed himself in.”

“It has been very traumatic for my daughter. She had nine hours of forensic examinations in a London hospital.”

“It’s disrupted the family. She was bullied at school so I moved her.”

“She hasn’t got any confidence. Her life has been ruined and she’s not coping with it. She’s locked herself in her bedroom crying.”

“I just wanted to get it over and done with and for my daughter to get on with a normal life.”

“My daughter is not getting on with her life. It’s absolutely appalling. We have to pick up the pieces and we thought we had done that by putting the rape trial to bed.”




Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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