Allegations Of Historic Sex Abuse

[hc4361]

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://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396840/TV-star-super-injunction-case-sex-girl-15-Famous-actor-recited-nursery-rhyme-seduced-victim.html#ixzz2cQhuvvuw

[pixie373]

It looks as though she would have had to make a complaint within a year. I can't see from the link which year this was alleged to have happened, but can only guess the Law has been changed since.

[hc4361]

It was 24 years ago, pixie, 1979

[netibiza]

hc - I also read and wondered this!

[pixie373]

Hmmm. Were the allegations made about Jimmy Saville at the time, but ignored?

[FredPuli43]

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.

[hc4361]

It's perplexing. This historic abuse case was reported in 2011, the offences occurred from 1979.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10488122.East_Sussex_teacher_jailed_in_historic_sex_abuse_case/

[hc4361]

So Fred, are you saying that the police must charge within 12 months of the offence being reported?
If so, it seems the police have failed big time in this case.

[ummmm]

Could it be because she is the only one who made a complaint? The others seem to have complaints by several people.

[grumpy01]

Meanwhile,Pixie,despite operation yewtree, Jimmy saville, from whence all this business began,remains dead.

[FredPuli43]

No, hc, I read the Schedule as meaning 'within 12 months of the act giving rise to the offence under s10' not 'within 12 months of the complaint being made or the police becoming aware of it'

[grumpy01]

Is this the real Police or those irritating PCSO's who roam around but appear to achieve very little.No power of arrest etc but still can drive patrol cars etc presumably while regulars brush up their snooker skills etc..

[Khandro]

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.

[FredPuli43]

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.

[hc4361]

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?

[hc4361]

Actually the Mail report yesterday did state the woman had consented to intercourse when she was 15.

[FredPuli43]

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

[hc4361]

Thanks all for helping me to understand what's happened here.

What is the likelihood of this woman receiving a letter from the CPS that stated something along the lines of 'we have no doubts at all that the events occurred as you described'? This was stated in the report yesterday.

[FredPuli43]

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

[hc4361]

Yes, Fred, I see that. That is one big loophole that allows x off for sexual intercourse but convicts y of (example) groping even though both offences in the same year, were reported at the same time and both 15 year old girls consented.

What a mess.

[FredPuli43]

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