A judge ruled that Nicola Fox wasn’t treated differently because of her gender (Picture: BPM)

A woman who was jailed for four years for sexually abusing a boy in her home has told her ‘lenient’ sentence will not be increased.

Nicola Fox, 34, lured the boy into her home saying she wanted a ‘chat’ with him before pulling him onto her bed, slamming the bedroom door closed and barricading it with a table so he couldn’t get out.

She then forced him to have intercourse with her despite him telling her to stop.

Prosecutor Claire Holmes said: ‘He was clear that he didn’t want her to do this. He was telling her to stop, to get off. He was crying at one point.




‘Her response was to tell him to stop crying, and she said that in an annoyed and aggressive tone. He felt annoyed, upset and embarrassed.’

In a victim statement, the boy said he had lost confidence and become socially isolated.

She was jailed for just four years for forcing a boy to have sex (Picture: BPM)

Miss Holmes said: ‘He can’t think about future relationships because the thought scares him. He feels angry because this defendant has taken all of his first experiences away from him, which is something he won’t get back.’

She pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual activity with child and was given the four-year prison sentence by recorder Richard Woolfall.

That sentence was challenged at the Court of Appeal where it was claimed that Fox had been treated differently because of her gender.

Barrister Louise Oakley said: ‘It cannot be right that a female who commits an offence is dealt with more leniently than a male, simply because she is female.’

However, Lady Justice Hallett said there was no indication the Crown Court judge had imposed a less harsh sentence on Fox because she is a woman.

She said the sentence was ‘lenient’ but there were a number of factors, including the fact Fox had mental health problems, which led to her sentence being set at four years by Recorder Woolfall.

Sitting with Mr Justice Langstaff and Mr Justice King, she said: ‘We detect nothing in the judge’s sentencing remarks to suggest that he was in any way underestimating the seriousness of the offence because the offender is female.’

The judge added: ‘In our view, this was a lenient sentence, but not unduly so.

‘We understand why the sentence was put before us – we are acutely conscious of the victim’s suffering and the fact that offences of this seriousness – especially against a child – should not result in different sentences for male and female offenders.

‘But we have concluded it would be wrong to give leave to the Attorney General to refer this sentence.’