On May 10, 1:14 pm, Robbie wrote:
> Cub Reporter wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:31:36 +0100, "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.
>
> >> 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????
>
> > What's more to the point, if you go to a country with the *same* AOC
> > as here (16), have . with a 16-year-old, you could be prosecuted
> > when you come home.
>
> > Presumably this would also apply if you took your 16-year-old
> > girlfriend. If you were also 16, she could be prosecuted too. This
> > might happen to married 16-year-olds unless there is a 'marriage
> > exception' to the law.
>
> > I'm surprised that contributors to this thread are failing to see the
> > implications.
>
> You've misunderstood what you posted, specifically:
>
> "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. This
> has all been achieved through the Criminal Justice and Immigration
> Bill which received Royal Assent on Thursday 8 May."
>
> in other words if the act is illegal in the UK but in not the country
> where the act happened then the person can be prosecuted in the UK. The
> definition of a child for this purpose has been raised to 18. It doesn't
> say that the AOC is 18 for everywhere outside the UK.
Then why specifically point out that they've raised the age of a child
to 18 for the purposes of this act? Yes, it requires that the act be
an offence in the UK, but it *is* an offence in the UK to have .
with a child. Redefining what constitutes a child, but only outside
the UK, suggests to me that yes, they intend it to be an offence to
have . with a person under the age of 18 outside the UK.
If you're interpreting another, more logical reason for specifically
raising the age of a child specifically for this purpose, I'd be
interested to hear it.
|