It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Allegations Of Historic Sex Abuse
Assuming this article is factually correct, the CPS believed this woman's claim but could not take it to court because:
" Any charge would have been under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and proceedings would have had to have started within a year of the incident."
The headline is ambiguous:
"Actor escaped prosecution because law that applied at the time meant charge had to be brought within a year"
My question is - should she have reported it within a year of it happening OR did the police fail to charge him within a year of receiving the complaint?
If it is the former, why doesn't that apply to the Yewtree arrests?
Actor escaped prosecution because law that applied at the time meant charge had to be brought within a year
Read more: http://
" Any charge would have been under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and proceedings would have had to have started within a year of the incident."
The headline is ambiguous:
"Actor escaped prosecution because law that applied at the time meant charge had to be brought within a year"
My question is - should she have reported it within a year of it happening OR did the police fail to charge him within a year of receiving the complaint?
If it is the former, why doesn't that apply to the Yewtree arrests?
Actor escaped prosecution because law that applied at the time meant charge had to be brought within a year
Read more: http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hc4361. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s10 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16) and Schedule Two to the Act (prosecution and punishment of offences):
[s10 and attempts to commit that offence] "A prosecution may not be commenced more than 12 months after the offence charged"
This is a strange provision. It applies to no other offence under the Act; not to rape or indecent assault or ,indeed. procuring.
[s10 and attempts to commit that offence] "A prosecution may not be commenced more than 12 months after the offence charged"
This is a strange provision. It applies to no other offence under the Act; not to rape or indecent assault or ,indeed. procuring.
It's perplexing. This historic abuse case was reported in 2011, the offences occurred from 1979.
http://
http://
As there is no question of her being raped - which would be an entirely different affair, she must have been complicit with this act, if she had revealed that she was 15, it would also have made a difference. 24 years later she may wish she had not done this, but we are all different people from what we were 24 years ago, and probably wish we had not done some of the things we have. What on earth has the nursery rhyme got to do with this anyway? - bit more delectation for Daily Mail readers?
To answer the OP, yes, she should have reported at the time if she thought an offence had been committed against her.
To answer the OP, yes, she should have reported at the time if she thought an offence had been committed against her.
And it all explains why the other celebrities arrested or charged have not been so for a s10 offence whilst the old Act still had that Schedule in force, though it seems quite possible that, otherwise, there would have been at least one offence of intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16 disclosed.
So if these celebs admit to having intercourse with girls aged between 13 and 16 but they consented, they cannot be charged because the offences weren't reported within 12 months? Could evidence of consent be the victim 'going back for more' after the first time?
If they hadn't had intercourse but sexually assaulted them with their consent, they can be charged?
If they hadn't had intercourse but sexually assaulted them with their consent, they can be charged?
Consent never was part of the s10 offence nor a defence to it, and the time limit for starting a prosecution was 12 months from the date of the offence, not the reporting of it.
Did think that the prosecution might try charging indecent assault rather than the intercourse offence, though intercourse had taken place, but the problem there is that consent would have been a defence, as well as being apparent from the girl's own account, in all probability, plus the judge would be likely to take the view that it was an improper tactic, to get around the provisions of the Schedule about prosecuting within 12 months
Did think that the prosecution might try charging indecent assault rather than the intercourse offence, though intercourse had taken place, but the problem there is that consent would have been a defence, as well as being apparent from the girl's own account, in all probability, plus the judge would be likely to take the view that it was an improper tactic, to get around the provisions of the Schedule about prosecuting within 12 months
hc, going back to your post at 9.10 and the link about historic sexual offences, notice that none of the charges were for intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16. That really highlights the oddity of the time limit on prosecuting that one offence out of so many sexual offences covered by the 1956 Act
Hope it is not at all likely that the CPS would write a letter saying that they had doubts about the addressee complainant's account of events ! The should confine themselves to saying that regrettably the law does not permit prosecution or that the evidence, taken as a whole , does not meet their criteria for prosecuting
