"Alex Heney" wrote in message
news:ld7c24hkf90c53rdtumtq91lkqf3jl828t@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT), 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 previously, the list of offences included as ones for which
> this clause could be invoked (section 72 of the .ual offences Act
> 2003, with schedule 2 being the list of offences) only included
> offences where the victim was under the age of 16.
>
> Now it includes offences where the victim is under the age of 18 - but
> they MUST still be offences in the UK.
>
>
So what you are saying is, if a .ual offence like . takes place in
another country with victim under the age of 18 it can prosecuted here. But
if the victim of the offence such as . is over 18 then it can only be
delt with in the country the offence took place.
|