When a judge considers that there's a possibility that he might be passing a suspended sentence, it would be totally irrational for him to send an offender to jail in the period between pleading guilty and the date of his sentencing (which, with current court delays could be months away yet). So the judge's decision is an entirely logical one.
Come on chico, kiddie fiddling surely must be a jail term and even if it isn't why would you let the guy leave the country ahead of sentencing? He didn't have to jail him but he could have taken away his passport etc. What price he does a disappearing act?
We don't know how serious the offender's actions were, TTT.
'Sexual assault' can often mean nothing more than lightly placing a hand on a fully-clothed 'private' part of a victim's body. (Similarly, I've seen a case reported where a guy was convicted of "sexual activity with a child" simply for tickling their feet to make them laugh).
The judge knows what was actually involved in this case. We don't.
According to my link there were no fewer than 23 instances of penetration, all on children under 13 years of age. Just the one is one too many. The guy should have been remanded. The judge needs to be removed from his office.
If the man who sexually abused the seven year old me had been taken to court and given the chance to go on a holiday before being sentenced I'd be more than a bit miffed.