I blame SinSi for not coming and doing my ironing...
Ok... so I was definitely right that her consent is immaterial - this is taken from the CPS prosecution guidance:
"The fact that the child may voluntarily seek out the company of the suspect is not a defence to either s.2 or See, for example R v Leather (1994) 98 in which the court held that the test was whether the child had been deflected from that which he would with parental consent otherwise have been doing.
See also Foster v DPP 1 WLR 1400 in which the child ran away from her foster carers in order to associate with the defendant. This case is also important for clarifying the distinction between taking and keeping in s.2. The court held that s.2(1)(a) required the child there and then to be in the lawful control when taken or detained, whereas s.2(1)(b) required only that the child was kept out of the lawful control of someone entitled to it when taken or detained."
What is material is the consent of the parents or legal guardians, rather than the child. There is an offence if a person has taken a child or kept a child away from her parents/guardians without their consent or any legal right to do so.
In a case called R v. Delaney, a 12-year old girl ran away from her mother with a man who had been in a relationship with her mother (so, acting in a fatherly role to the girl). He had no previous convictions. On appeal, his sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment was upheld because "the offence had a traumatic effect on the girl's family".
In relation to the question of evidence, it is not only the statements of the child that are relevant. The CPS will consider all available evidence and if they have sufficient evidence and deem it to be in the public interest, they will prosecute (regardless of whether the child wants the person prosecuted and/or is willing to give evidence themselves).
Also, Star - in relation to your comment about prosecuting statutory , I think the change in law that you're referring to is about whether or not it was a crime if there was consent from the child in question. In 2003, the law was clarified to make it clear that any sexual activity involving consenting children under 16 is unlawful. It has always been possible to prosecute regardless of whether the child will give evidence - the CPS decides whether to prosecute based on a number of factors, and it has always been the case that if they had sufficient evidence and felt it was in the public interest, they could prosecute.
It's actually got nothing to do with sex - he's accused* of , regardless of whether or not he had sex with her.
I say "accused" and not "guilty" because he has not yet been tried in a court of law...
I'm quite upset about the decision to , and have been following the news stories about this recently. I have always battled with myself over where I stand (in general) on the issue of animal culling. My gut reaction is that it is wrong to kill animals other than as part of the food chain - I eat meat and have no problem with hunting when the purpose is to eat the animals that are hunted. But, as a general rule, I find it upsetting when people hunt for fun or engage in any form of animal culling where the purpose is simply to kill the animal, as it is such a waste of a life and strikes me as uncivilised and cruel.
Having said all of that, my head tells me that this emotional reaction that I have is not always logical. We (humans) have made quite a mess of the natural balance in the world and we certainly do not live in harmony with our environment. We have created countless problems in nature, and I think it is our responsibility to do what we can to fix the problems that we create (although, those doing the fixing are rarely those who caused the problems in the first place...). For example, when invasive species are introduced into an environment and threaten an indigenous species (grey squirrels in the UK being a prime example), we then have a responsibility to protect the indigenous species (since it's our fault for buggering up the natural balance in the first place).
Anyway... my point is that I still don't know where I stand on the issue of animal culling in general, so for me, I think it very much depends on the specific circumstances in any given situation. In this case, I am leaning towards the view that the decision to permit badger culling is the wrong decision. There appears to be very little evidence that it will have a significant impact on the spread of TB, and (being cynical) I wonder whether the policy has been introduced simply so that the Government doesn't have to do anything more expensive to try to stem the spread of the disease.
I'd be interested to know what others think about this, as it really is the sort of issue that I always find difficult to resolve in my mind...
I blame flower for posting threads that are too tempting and entertaining and keep distracting me from the work I'm supposed to be doing this evening...!
Welcome!!