Andrew McGee wrote:
> "Palindrome" wrote in message
> news:ZgdVj.176196$XH2.154190@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> Gaz wrote:
>>> "Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
>>> news:g03l3k$4p9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "Cub Reporter" wrote in message
>>>> news:ifg924589lgkranqctfa3o92eu9ptfdrhq@4ax.com...
>>>>> ...but OK at home. Regardless of the laws and customs of the foreign
>>>>> country (and whether you took the 16-year-old with you presumably).
>>>>>
>>>>> News article:
>>>>> =========================================
>>>>> We will now be able to prosecute UK nationals here for a .ual
>>>>> offence committed against a child anywhere in the world, so long as
>>>>> the act committed would be a relevant offence in this country. We have
>>>>> also raised the age of a child for these purposes from 16 to 18.
>>>> Yes?
>>>>
>>>> What's the problem?
>>>>
>>>> Lots of things are illegal in some countries and not others so it's
>>>> common sense that the local laws should apply.
>>>>
>>>> If it's illegal to have . with a 16 year old in that country then you
>>>> could be prosecuted for doing so.
>>>> If it's not illegal then you haven't done anything wrong.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
>>> Unless i am reading the article incorrectly though, doesnt it mean, that
>>> if you go to a country where the AOC is 18, have ., you can face
>>> prosecution back here in the UK, for something that isnt a criminal
>>> offence here????
>>>
>> Which would you rather, face prosecution in that country having been sent
>> back to it - or face prosecution here?
>>
>> If you go abroad and break laws in a foreign country, you should expect to
>> suffer the consequences - whether they be imposed via that country's legal
>> system or your own.
>>
>> --
>> Sue
>>
>
> No - it's thel ast bit where this goes wrong.
>
> If I go to Ruritania and commit an offence under Ruritanian law, then of
> course the Ruritanian authorities can prosecute me. If I have returned to
> England,they may be able to have me extradited for this purpose.
>
> BUT.
>
> 1. I am very sceptical of the idea that the English court should have
> jurisdiction to try me for the offence under Ruritanian law, even if the
> acts in question would be an offence if done here.
If the choice was extradition, a trial and jail in Ruritiania - or a
trial and jail here, then it could be argued that it is in everyone's
interest to allow the accused to request it and the Ruritanians to
authorise it.
Similarly, a Ruritanian may much prefer a trial there, for an offence
committed here.
>
> 2. I am absolutely convinced that the English court should not have
> jurisdiction to try me if the acts would not be an offence if done here.
If the accused wanted it and the Ruritanians authorised it, I have no
problem with the idea.
Similarly, sending people to their own countries to serve their
sentence, rather than keeping them in a foreign country and deporting
them at the end of their sentence, seems sensible.
>
> 3. And it should go without saying that if the acts are not illegal in
> Ruritania, then there is nothing to prosecute, even if the acts would be an
> offence if done here.
>
>
That's an interesting idea. It seems more likely to apply to some
foreigner committing an offence here - as we seem to have rather more
laws than most countries..
--
Sue
|