Daniel Cieslak has walked free after pleading guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl, after a judge agreed she looked over 16

A man has walked free from court after pleading guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl.

Lady Scott took the 'wholly exceptional' decision to grant Daniel Cieslak an absolute discharge at the High Court in Glasgow today.

Cieslak, 21, met the victim and her friend, aged 12 and 13, in a taxi queue in Edinburgh after a night out in the summer of 2015 and went back to a party with them thinking they were 16 and 17, a statement on the Judiciary of Scotland website said.

He was 19 at the time.

Lady Scott said: 'You understood from chat in the taxi that the victim was 16 years old and her friend was 17 years old. The taxi driver had the impression that the victim was about 20 years old.

'Once at the flat, after some time, you paired off and you and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse.

'She left the next morning. She had no concerns and there was no suggestion of her being distressed.'

Police officers who had spoken to the victim earlier in the night in relation to another matter also had no concerns over her age, Lady Scott said in her order.

The judge said Cieslak was culpable under 'strict liability', where victims under 13 are deemed by law to be incapable of consent.

But the judge said there were 'a number of exceptional circumstances' which applied.

She said: 'Although the factual absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, it is a material factor for the purposes of sentencing. Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.

'So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older.

Lady Margaret Elizabeth Scott (right), who allowed Daniel Cieslak (left) to walk free after he pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl

'The statutory offence for girls aged over 13 to 16 years provides for a defence based on reasonable grounds of belief by the accused that the victim was above the age of consent.

'It is clear from the agreed facts presented to me that the Crown would have been unlikely to, or unable to, exclude such a defence and they do not dispute this. Accordingly, it is very unlikely the Crown could prove a crime had the victim been over 13 years of age.'

Cieslak became distressed when he was told the age of the victim by police officers and has dropped out of a college course, Lady Scott said.

OTHER RAPE CASES INVOLVING STUDENTS THAT ENDED WITH QUASHED CONVICTIONS... ALASTAIR COOKE, 23 The Durham University student walked free after being accused of raping a 23-year-old student in her home when she was drunk and unresponsive. A jury was told he stalked the woman, who he knew, after a house party, let himself in to her home and raped her three times. Jurors couldn't agree on a verdict and in January the prosecution decided against a retrial. PRITHVI SRIDHAR, 21 An 'outstanding' Cambridge university undergraduate was found not guilty of raping a fellow student in her room following a night out. He moved to the UK from India for a better education but was forced to 'put his life on hold' for a year after being accused of assaulting the alleged victim in November 2014. LOUIS RICHARDSON, 21 A Durham University undergraduate, he was cleared of rape and sexual assault in January last year following a high-profile trial. He faced separate charges relating to two woman who did not know each other. He was accused of raping a woman at his student house in March 2014 when she was 'crazy drunk', and was said to have assaulted another woman at a house party. GEORGE WORRALL, 22 Another Durham student, who endured an 18-month ordeal before his charges were finally dropped. The undergraduate had been charged with two rapes and one sexual assault dating from December 2014 after he took a woman back to his accommodation. But last July, just weeks before his trial, the CPS dropped the case, due to 'inconsistencies' in his accuser's account. Advertisement

Taking into account that all witnesses on the night thought the victim was over 16, that Cieslak was told she was 16 and with no signs of distress, Lady Scott said: 'Your criminal culpability here is wholly restricted to the application of strict liability within this offence.

'That is in marked distinction to other reported cases under this statutory provision, which have involved conduct involving assault or recklessness or force, or the absence of consent or have resulted in distress to the victim - all of which are factors which raise the need for punishment.

'In addition, there is no suggestion here of predatory conduct or grooming or manipulation or deception.

'I do not consider there is any need for, or public interest in, punishment. To do so would in my view be disproportionate given the nature of the criminal culpability here.

'Nor do I consider there is any basis for, or real public interest in, requiring your notification under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

'Considering all of these factors I have reached the conclusion that justice is best served in this case by taking the wholly exceptional decision not to sentence you and instead I discharge you absolutely.

'As a result, the requirement of any notification does not arise under the relevant statutory provisions.'