Column: Bimbos, ‘bottom girls’ and the ugly reality of misogyny in our justice system
The case of Monez Oluwole v Attorney-General and others, which has just been heard by the High Court, raises many issues, some of which require immediate action by the government, and not just by the courts.
For many of us who are not black or Arab or Muslim, the case raises all sorts of issues that go far beyond the Oluwole and Ayis’s case alone. A number of other cases involving black, and Muslim, women are still making their way through the courts.
One such case involves the “Black Girls” of New York, where the women, who were also victims of sexual abuse by a white woman, are demanding damages of £300,000, paid by the State.
Last year, we were told that, in this case and in cases involving other African American girls, the government – under pressure from the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) – had not yet made its position clear.
Now, however, the government has finally come up with its answer. According to a spokesperson, the State will have to pay “a minimal financial settlement in respect of each and every one” of those abused black girls.
For some, the settlement seems inadequate. But the government must not be forced to pay out so much money in the face of serious crimes against girls. What was the government thinking of when it refused to pay damages to women like this? Has the government lost its moral compass that the NCSS says it is protecting?
Many years ago, before I joined the judiciary as a lawyer, the law relating to damages for sexual offences was clarified. Sexual offences of violence were subject to certain limits in terms of the amount of money that the State would have to pay.
The limit was between £20,000 and £60,000. It was not to be considered disproportionate.
It was not unreasonable to expect this in terms of the amount of
