L’uomo ha avuto un incontro sessuale “profondamente sbagliato” – e ha detto che era “meraviglioso”

>A social worker has been jailed for engaging in a sexual encounter with a ‘vulnerable’ woman.

>Martin Rosenfield, 62, was sentenced to six months behind bars after admitting that his behaviour amounted to misconduct in a public office. Rosenfield, who worked for Salford council, did not resist when his victim instigated sexual activity after he attended her home.

>He has since lost his job, his home and his marriage, Manchester Crown Court heard. Rosenfield was a ‘contact worker’ employed by the council to supervise ‘contact sessions’ between the victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and her children. The pair had each other’s phone numbers and ‘wisely or not’, Rosenfield began ending their messages with an ‘x’, meaning a kiss.

>The day before the sexual encounter, they had texted each other. The victim told Rosenfield ‘thank you for another great contact session’. About an hour later, the victim received an unsolicited image of a man’s genitals from an unknown number.

>The messages became sexualised and the victim also replied with sexual messages. She came to believe that the unknown man was actually Rosenfield.

>But enquiries proved that it wasn’t, and the incident was described as an ‘unfortunate and remarkable coincidence’. The following day, the victim texted Rosenfield to say she had ‘give up’ and that she wouldn’t be attending another meeting.

>He urged her to not ‘give up’ and asked if he could attend her home. He did, and when inside they kissed and she performed oral sex on him. Afterwards, she texted Rosenfield saying ‘that was so good’ and Rosenfield said ‘that was wonderful, thank you’.

>The police were alerted, and Mr Rosenfield was prosecuted. Rosenfield, from Bury, pleaded guilty to a charge of engaging in misconduct in a public office.

>But he disputed elements of the prosecution’s case. He denied that he had instigated sexual contact with the victim, and insisted it was actually her who had instigated it.

>Following a trial of issue, where both parties gave evidence, Judge Nicholas Dean KC ruled that it was the victim who had instigated the sexual activity. He also ruled that the victim had expressed a sexual interest in Rosenfield.

>Defending, Dan Calder described the episode as a ‘single, isolated incident’ with a ‘highly unusual’ and ‘perhaps unique set of events’. Mr Calder said Rosenfield had worked for himself for many years before taking a job at the council. He said Rosenfield and his former wife had fostered 16 children and had three children himself.

>He appealed to the judge to spare sending Rosenfield to jail, highlighting his lack of previous criminal convictions and arguing he had ‘significant personal mitigation’.

>But Judge Dean said that there were ‘public policy reasons’ why offenders convicted of misconduct in a public office should be sent to prison. “These circumstances seem to me to apply equally to social workers as to police officers and others,” he said.

Well, that’s one of the more unusual cases I’ve seen

Why does the article refer to the woman as the victim?

If the court decided she instigated the act and there doesn’t seem to be an abuse of power? As in, he was not blackmailing her or forcing her in any way?

I mean the public office thing is fine but I don’t see how the woman is a victim here?