Crynant man jailed for child sex offences

I'm not going to sit here and in any way condone Mr Peat's actions (it does appear to me that he broke the law and should be punished in accordance with the sentencing guidelines). What I would like to do is point to a problem with our justice system and an unfair comment from the detective, especially in such an emotive case. The detective states that changing to a guilty plea proves that he was well aware of her age and that he was well aware he knew he was doing something illegal. It doesn't prove this at all. Men (unlike women) once charged with an offense like this, typically find it very hard even with practically zero evidence to get a not guilty verdict (See Lord Britten I believe, along with other high profile cases), in some cases it's merely based on the words of the victim. So the chances are he'd be going down anyway. So why would he plead guilty even if he thinks he's innocent? Because the legal system encourages him to do so, the solicitor or barrister would have advised him that a guilty plea is given lenience of some kind come sentencing, usually equating to a reduction of the sentence by a third. Plead not guilty, get 9 years, plead guilty... get 6 years. Further complicating things is that it is astronomically hard to prove a case of rape or CSA, it's not like there's a finger print at the end of the day and half the time the victim is afraid of coming forward, believes that they might be accused of lying (which while a completely valid fear is not usually grounded in facts after it gets to the court stage, police are notorious for not believing victims though) or simply doesn't want to relive the trauma on what could end up leading to a mistrial (entire thing having to be repeated) or a not guilty verdict. Hopefully, the nuance comes across as intended and not in any way as a defence of Mr Peat's actions.