15 year old prosecuted for rape, 11 yr old enjoying pregnancy

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If a girl got an abortion illegally (is there a minimum age for these things, without parental consent?) or got a tattoo while underage or whatever, woudlnt she be complicit in a crime committed against her?

edit: similarly for a person involved in assissted suicide before the 1961 Act?

I was being selfish and talking to proteus because he understands the inchoate offences.

yes in your examples they'd be complicit in the ordinary english sense. but that just isn't what i was talking about

[milo]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The most annoying thing about that report is that it doesnt give you the specfic facts about the case which would make a rational evaluation possible. For instance, it would be quite different if the boy actually violently raped her, than it would be if he was just touching her in a "but I didnt know there was anything wrong with this because I'm only 9 and havent yet learned how society views sexual behavior" way. Most tabloid articles are bad because they are clouded by an arrational interpretation of the facts, but this one is worse becuase it doesnt even mention the facts themselves. Its a horrible, horrible piece of journalism which is designed to hit people on the emotional level, while denying them the opportunity of moving beyond this.

Thats a good point, im just waiting for an 8 or 9 year old being charged for indecent assualt for playing 'doctors and nurses' with someone of a comparable age. I can barely even remember being 9 years old, when that boy grows up i doubt he'll even be able to recall exactly why he has a criminal record.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

they were just fluffing it.

let's go back to basic principles. (otherwise we'd go cross eyed with precedent)

B is certainly the victim of the GBH and yet he is guilty of attempt and conspiracy of that GBH, surely?

But surely there's more than one GBH going on?

They were guilty of conspiracy to commit GBH against C as soon as they "plan together" to do so, so I don't see how the fact that B subsequently got hurt could change that.

They are then both guilty of attempted GBH against C when they "spring the ambush", at which point nothing's happened to B, so again I see no way they could somehow stop being guilty of that.

A's then presumably guilty of GBH against B when he accidentally injures him, though transferred malice, but I'd imagine B wouldn't be guilty of GBH against himself. (Can you commit GBH against yourself through transferred malice? To remove the secondary party business from the equation, if I attempt to stab you but I'm an incompetent halfwit and I manage to stab myself, surely I'm not guilty of GBH against myself? I know that doesn't necessarily mean he can't be guilty as a secondary party (since, for example, women can commit rape as a secondary party but not as a principal offender), but it would seem rather odd if he could be.)

[Dante Hicks]

Weren't a couple of the "victims" in the Operation Spanner case guilty of being parties to offences against themselves? (or is that the same as Nod's point?)

[Cut Tooth]

Whats C guilty of though? :S

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Weren't a couple of the "victims" in the Operation Spanner case guilty of being parties to offences against themselves? (or is that the same as Nod's point?)

I don't think so. The case report seems to imply that they were all injuring each other, so they charged A with GBH on B and then B with GBH on A at a different time. There don't appear to have been any people who were only injured, and never took an active part.

Similar cases might be able to help, though: in Wilson, in which a man was convicted of ABH (and then let out on appeal) because "at his wife's instigation [he] branded his initials on her buttocks with a hot knife", there never seems to have been any question that this instigating wife was or could be charged as a secondary party to his crime.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Cut Tooth

Whats C guilty of though? :S

Something under the Sexual Offences Act, most likely.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

they were just fluffing it.

let's go back to basic principles. (otherwise we'd go cross eyed with precedent)

B is certainly the victim of the GBH and yet he is guilty of attempt and conspiracy of that GBH, surely?

Two separate GBHs - one committed on B, and the conspiracy and attempted GBH on C.

Originally Posted by Proteus

Something under the Sexual Offences Act, most likely.

Probably - seems like everything else fits under the SOA's banner anyway.