On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:37:41 +0100, "nikeshoes"
wrote:
>
>"Alex Heney" wrote in message
>news:ld7c24hkf90c53rdtumtq91lkqf3jl828t@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT), TimB
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
Yes. That is exactly what the law says.
And prior to this change, it could only have been prosecuted here if
the victim was under 16.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Laundromat in a nudist colony.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |