Boy, 12, rapes seven-year-old schoolgirl during a drunken truth or dare game

The young rapist, who cannot be named for legal reasons, drank four cans of lager and downed two miniature bottles of vodka before the attack.

He claims he assaulted the girl as part of a truth or dare game with another boy.

Newcastle Crown Court heard that he had had a troubled upbringing that included physical abuse, witnessing domestic violence and being exposed to pornography.

The court heard the rape, which lasted less than a minute, took place in Gateshead on September 15, 2006.

The attacker will spend the next three years under supervision, where he will receive treatment for his behaviour, after the court was told he has difficulty understanding the consequences of his behaviour.

Penny Moreland, prosecuting, said the young sex attacker was arrested after the girl told her mother what had happened.

Ms Moreland said: "In interview, the defendant made full and frank admissions. He then said the girl had grassed him up."

Also, while being interviewed by police, the boy admitted engaging in other sexual activity, including the alleged rape of a four-year-old boy.

Social services and child psychologist reports said the boy presented a high risk of further offending on both sexes if not given proper treatment.

Because of the defendant's age, Judge Michael Cartlidge ordered barristers to remove their traditional wigs and allowed the boy to sit at the back of the court with accompanying adults.

His barrister, Stuart Graham, said the boy had suffered from a troubled upbringing.

Mr Graham added: "He was in tears outside of the court."

Instead of custody at a secure unit, Mr Graham suggested placing the boy in a residential programme that helps juvenile sex offenders.

Sentencing, Judge Cartlidge said it was a "most unusual case" and he could not find help from sentencing guidelines.

He concluded that the guidelines in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not prevent him from sending the boy for treatment, which all the experts who interviewed him agreed was necessary.

Explaining his decision to send the boy to a residential programme, the judge said: "Whilst the risk is not insignificant that he will harm individuals in the future, it becomes, in my opinion, a risk that is what the act describes as significant."

But he warned the boy: "You have done something very wicked indeed and I hope over time you will learn what that is."

The judge also made an order preventing the boy from working with children when he is older.