On May 10, 5:57 pm, Robbie wrote:
> 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.
>
But they aren't saying it matches it - they're very specific about the
fact that they're *raising* it. |