Judges and Magistrates are rightly given discretion in sentencing because it is inarguable that every case that comes to the courts is different and must be judged on its own merits.At the same time, justice must be seen to be blind and there has to be some consistency in sentencing. If it is left up to the whim and moods of different judges and magistrates, in which manifestly different sentences are handed down for offences which seem to be virtually identical, then public confidence in the system is lost.So there has to be some balance in the system. Consistency must be tempered by the recognition that the facts are different from one case to the other.So judges and magistrates must also put their personal feelings and biases aside as far as is humanly possible and judge the cases as objectively as possible.This newspaper is reluctant to criticise sentences handed down by the courts because judges and magistrates generally have access to more information than anyone else. With the best will in the world, no reporter can provide all of the facts that may have been presented, both during the trial and at the sentencing, and there is often information that is submitted to the bench that is not read out in open court.Nonetheless, there are times when a sentence is so at variance with the facts of a case, and so out of step with accepted norms, that a newspaper would fail in its duty if it did not comment on it.The sentencing of Joshua Crockwell this week for sexually exploiting a 12-year-old girl is just such a case. Crockwell received a 15-month prison sentence, but Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo suspended the sentence, meaning that the man, who was 20 at the time of the offence, will spend no time in prison.It is not the sentence itself but Mr Tokunbo’s comments that are the most disturbing facet of the case.Crockwell denied the charge, and Mr Tokunbo found him guilty. And he rightly stated that he should have known the victim was “off limits”. But he also said that Crockwell did not “prey” on her or “pursue her”.This should not matter. The victim, regardless of how mature she may have appeared, or her own behaviour, had the right to expect not to be exploited by an adult. It is the adult’s responsibility not to do so. A 12-year-old is not an adult and cannot be blamed for what happened.Mr Tokunbo also described the offence as a four on scale of one to ten. Attempting to scale an offence of this kind for a 12-year-old is simply impossible. No one can say what effect this will have on a 12-year-old girl.Nonetheless, it is wrong to single out Mr Tokunbo entirely. The prosecution must also be held accountable for failing to produce the Victim Impact Statement that had been prepared.This may have made a difference, but this omission meant the effect on the victim was wrong.It can be strongly argued that Mr Tokunbo should have accepted the statement, and possibly delayed sentencing, when he was made aware of it. But the fact is the Crown failed in its duty as well.This was a bad day for Bermuda’s courts. The balance between consistency in sentencing and the individual facts of the case was not found. And a child has not received a justice as a result.