TimB wrote:
> 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?
Because there are some offences that have been introduced / amended in
recent years that specifically state the age of "under 18" with
reference to a child. I think we can assume that the comments by the
Government minister was lazy, "16 to 18" should really mean "under 16 to
under 18". So it could cover a myriad of offences - indecent images of
children, . between an adult in a position of trust and a "child", for
example.
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.
>
Just that reason - to ensure that the definition of a "child" matches
that in certain pieces of legislation.
--
Robbie |