He's a grown man, a married man and a supposedly qualified professional. He was also placed in a position of trust. No matter how persuasive this schoolgirl was alleged to be, he simply should not have allowed himself to be drawn into that situation. We watched the proceedings while the authorities were searching for the pair, and all I could think of was 'grow up, mate', what on earth made you think you could live out your days together on casual bar work in France? He's thrown away his career, his family and most likely his freedom. It's a sorry tale and my heart goes out to his family who will be under the media spotlight for a long time.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
The blame game
Sex God
Mike, agree absolutely. The girl's 15. She may be mature physically, but in the eyes of the law she's still a child. She's not deemed capable of making adult decisions, or capable of fully appreciating the potential ramifications of those decisions in terms of their potential harm. I don't think she shares anything like the same responsibility as the teacher. The law is there to protect her from herself as much as it is to protect her from adults who might take advantage of a young girl's burgeoning sexuality.
The teacher should have been able to maintain his professional boundaries, no matter how seductive she was with him. His inability to do that shows he's quite immature himself, either unable or unwilling to properly apply reason and restrain his desire, allowing himself instead to be led by his cock and emotions. He must have known deep down exactly how this would turn out, yet still he did it. Absolutely reckless, speaks volumes. Quite right that the full consequences fall on him, and him alone.
The teacher should have been able to maintain his professional boundaries, no matter how seductive she was with him. His inability to do that shows he's quite immature himself, either unable or unwilling to properly apply reason and restrain his desire, allowing himself instead to be led by his cock and emotions. He must have known deep down exactly how this would turn out, yet still he did it. Absolutely reckless, speaks volumes. Quite right that the full consequences fall on him, and him alone.
Sex God
I think there's a difference. When the hormones kick in at puberty they create strong sexual urges and strong emotional responses in a child unused to dealing with them. It takes time and experience to learn how to restrain them and express them appropriately. The law's saying that it understands these urges and emotions are simply human nature and wants to give the child time to get used to them while keeping them safe from predatory adults inclined to take advantage of them. While I don't agree that a 10 year old can have full criminal responsibility where murder's concerned, I'd say the difference is that most children don't have an urge to murder, making those who do a true aberration. The courts need a full range of powers available to protect society from further harm. New found sexual desire though is common to pretty much everybody. The law doesn't seek to punish a child for that, it's concerned only with child protection. Not the same thing at all.
Quote by neilinleeds
Mike, agree absolutely. The girl's 15. She may be mature physically, but in the eyes of the law she's still a child. She's not deemed capable of making adult decisions, or capable of fully appreciating the potential ramifications of those decisions in terms of their potential harm. I don't think she shares anything like the same responsibility as the teacher. The law is there to protect her from herself as much as it is to protect her from adults who might take advantage of a young girl's burgeoning sexuality.
The teacher should have been able to maintain his professional boundaries, no matter how seductive she was with him. His inability to do that shows he's quite immature himself, either unable or unwilling to properly apply reason and restrain his desire, allowing himself instead to be led by his cock and emotions. He must have known deep down exactly how this would turn out, yet still he did it. Absolutely reckless, speaks volumes. Quite right that the full consequences fall on him, and him alone.
This is truly a superbly written post and I couldn't agree more. She is the child; he is the adult. He should have known better and it does not matter how flirtatious or downright slutty she was - it was his responsibility to say no and protect her. Not only because she is a child, but also because he was placed in a position of responsibility and trust in her life. I really don't have much more to add, as neil has pretty much expressed my thoughts (almost as if he strolled into my brain and plucked 'em out!)
As an aside, if any of you have seen Hard Candy, the character played by Ellen Page in that film does a very good job of explaining the point here (albeit using rather violent methods!)
Quote by flower411
in the eyes of the law she IS capable of making adult decisions because she could be found responsible for murder ......are we saying that emotional or sexual desire is beyond our control until we are sixteen and then suddenly becomes controllable?
In the eyes of the law she is capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong from the age of 10 - that is the psychological premise on which the legal age of criminal responsibility is based.
I think that there is a HUGE difference between a child aged 10 being held responsible for his or her own criminal actions, and a situation where an adult man has sex with a child of that age. Are you suggesting that, since the criminal age of responsibility is 10, the age of consensual sex should also be 10 and it should therefore be OK for older men to have sex with 10 year olds? What about other things, like the legal age to buy alcohol, or cigarettes, or the legal age to vote or join the military...? Should everything be set at aged 10?
There are a lot of differences in the legal definition of a "child", depending on the context and there are good reasons for this (the NSPCC has a good on this).
But perhaps I have misunderstood you... perhaps you think that the age of criminal responsibility is too low (as has been suggested by the )?
Quote by flower411
It's actually got nothing to do with sex - he's accused* of child abduction, 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...
All the more reason to question ...... if she is capable of being blamed for murder in the eyes of the law ...shouldn`t she be able to decide who she goes on holiday with ?
No. She is a child and therefore requires her parents' consent. Her parents (or legal guardians) are responsible for her until she reaches adulthood. Which is as it should be.
Quote by flower411
It's actually got nothing to do with sex - he's accused* of child abduction, 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...
All the more reason to question ...... if she is capable of being blamed for murder in the eyes of the law ...shouldn`t she be able to decide who she goes on holiday with ?
No. She is a child and therefore requires her parents' consent. Her parents (or legal guardians) are responsible for her until she reaches adulthood. Which is as it should be.
So by the same logic her parents should be held responsible if she commits murder .
Perhaps I should have been more specific - I meant that her parents are responsible for her wellbeing...
I think that the question of the legal age of criminal responsibility is an entirely different debate.
Bringing it back on topic, the facts are that he is accused of a crime because it is a crime for a person to take a child (defined as a person under the age of 16 for this purpose) away from his/her legal guardians without their consent. Do you disagree that this is an appropriate law? Do you think that children under that age should be permitted to go off (to another country) with a person twice their age without their parents' knowledge or consent? Really?
The law says she is still a child, but many times I have heard that saying and it is ignored by authorities. Are we talking about the law? If so the law says it is illegal for a " child " under 16 to have sex yet the schools give that child of 15, and much younger, the morning after pill.
The point here is at 15 she may be a child in the eyes of the law, but some kids are way grown up at 15 and certainly know the consequences of their own actions.
The bit for me that is the most important here, is that he has blatantly disregarded his position of trust. On that basis he will never work as a teacher again in this country, but whether he will be found guilty of anything remains to be seen.
Even at 15 she has to take some level of blame if that is the right word here, for the actions she willingly took.
I am happy at least that the parents have her back at home, safe and well.
The point here is at 15 she may be a child in the eyes of the law, but some kids are way grown up at 15 and certainly know the consequences of their own actions.
The bit for me that is the most important here, is that he has blatantly disregarded his position of trust. On that basis he will never work as a teacher again in this country, but whether he will be found guilty of anything remains to be seen.
Even at 15 she has to take some level of blame if that is the right word here, for the actions she willingly took.
I am happy at least that the parents have her back at home, safe and well.
Sex God
there is,was and only ever will be one villain in this type of scenario and quite rightfully too IMHO
it just goes to show that being academic is no measure of intelligence
it just goes to show that being academic is no measure of intelligence
Quote by starlightcouple
I am happy at least that the parents have her back at home, safe and well.
But star, I'd hazard a guess that she is really pissed off that she's back there and would much prefer to be somewhere else with someone else.
If the Daily Wail have it right, I think she had her mother's passport in her possession when she left the UK at Dover. Surely the Border Control Agency should be answering some questions here when it comes down to legal responsibilities. They as much had a duty of care and could have prevented this 'abduction' before it began.
There is nothing sinister in a 15 year age gap between people in love. There was a 20 year age gap between my parents and whilst 70 years ago my father was probably branded as a child snatcher (my mother was 18 I think at the time when things were very different to what they are today) these things are all relative. Their marriage survived the passage of time and six devoted children.
There is no suggestion that there was anything improper between my parents getting together except of course in the dirty little minds of the 'tongue waggers' of the day but it was 'outside the box'. That said, they proved them all wrong when they said 'it won't last' - it did! Do please remember that 70 years ago, today's 15 year old was the 18 year old of that period.
Perhaps France is more tolerant and understanding in it's approach to 15 year olds. Maybe it's time for the UK to wise up and face the reality that kids grow up much more (perhaps too) quickly and the law/society must adapt.
By the way, I somehow doubt that they 'eloped' as it was quaintly written in one popular paper, to France in order just to have sex and I don't subscribe to the too simplified view that the teacher owed her a duty of care not to fall in love.
It doesn't always work like that.
Quote by GnV
But star, I'd hazard a guess that she is really pissed off that she's back there and would much prefer to be somewhere else with someone else.
Well we do not know for sure whether that is true or not at this stage GnV.
Quote by GnV
If the Daily Wail have it right, I think she had her mother's passport in her possession when she left the UK at Dover. Surely the Border Control Agency should be answering some questions here when it comes down to legal responsibilities. They as much had a duty of care and could have prevented this 'abduction' before it began.
Without a doubt GnV. But I am not suprised as the border control let anyone in, but thought they were a bit stricter letting people back out again.
Quote by GnV
There is nothing sinister in a 15 year age gap between people in love. There was a 20 year age gap between my parents and whilst 70 years ago my father was probably branded as a child snatcher (my mother was 18 I think at the time when things were very different to what they are today) these things are all relative. Their marriage survived the passage of time and six devoted children.
18 is not the same as 15 GnV as well you know, and yes I understand about 15 year age gaps but surely there is a whole world of difference between your two examples.
Quote by GnV
There is no suggestion that there was anything improper between my parents getting together except of course in the dirty little minds of the 'tongue waggers' of the day but it was 'outside the box'. That said, they proved them all wrong when they said 'it won't last' - it did! Do please remember that 70 years ago, today's 15 year old was the 18 year old of that period.
I think that you are not, nor I am qualified to make such judgements, but I do understand your argument.
Quote by GnV
Perhaps France is more tolerant and understanding in it's approach to 15 year olds. Maybe it's time for the UK to wise up and face the reality that kids grow up much more (perhaps too) quickly and the law/society must adapt.
Maybe France have it all wrong as they usually do, in that maybe they should raise it to a more acceptable level? I think 18 is the age of being an adult and I think it should be raised to that.
Quote by GnV
By the way, I somehow doubt that they 'eloped' as it was quaintly written in one popular paper, to France in order just to have sex and I don't subscribe to the too simplified view that the teacher owed her a duty of care not to fall in love.
No GnV from what I read he was under investigation for the " affair " and was about to be suspended by his school. I also heard that this had been going on when she was 14. That is a total cop out GnV and I would have guessed other more left wing minded on here would have used that as an argument, but not you.
Quote by GnV
It doesn't always work like that.
No thankfully it does not, as most teachers respect their responsibilities towards their pupils, and realise that any feelings they may have for a pupil, that it is wrong and they know the consequences of those actions.
I though am unsure as to what he will be charged with. Abduction of a minor? What happens if she says she went willingly and decides not to give any evidence against him? What happens if she refuses to give any evidence about anything? This is a difficult one for the law, and if the law does anything to him then it is possible that she could run away yet again with him. On this one I think I shall let the courts decide IF he has indeed done anything wrong, but he has thrown away his marriage and his career and possibly his freedom if they were to send him to prison. He knew this and so I wonder about his obvious feelings here towards her.
Quote by starlightcouple
But star, I'd hazard a guess that she is really pissed off that she's back there and would much prefer to be somewhere else with someone else.
Well we do not know for sure whether that is true or not at this stage GnV.
Maybe we will never know for sure
Quote by GnV
If the Daily Wail have it right, I think she had her mother's passport in her possession when she left the UK at Dover. Surely the Border Control Agency should be answering some questions here when it comes down to legal responsibilities. They as much had a duty of care and could have prevented this 'abduction' before it began.
Without a doubt GnV. But I am not suprised as the border control let anyone in, but thought they were a bit stricter letting people back out again.
They let me in and out again star :lol2:
Quote by GnV
There is nothing sinister in a 15 year age gap between people in love. There was a 20 year age gap between my parents and whilst 70 years ago my father was probably branded as a child snatcher (my mother was 18 I think at the time when things were very different to what they are today) these things are all relative. Their marriage survived the passage of time and six devoted children.
18 is not the same as 15 GnV as well you know, and yes I understand about 15 year age gaps but surely there is a whole world of difference between your two examples.
I know you are bit young to remember this star, but girls at the age of 18 70 years ago were regarded as much as girls at the age of 15 are today.
Quote by GnV
There is no suggestion that there was anything improper between my parents getting together except of course in the dirty little minds of the 'tongue waggers' of the day but it was 'outside the box'. That said, they proved them all wrong when they said 'it won't last' - it did! Do please remember that 70 years ago, today's 15 year old was the 18 year old of that period.
I think that you are not, nor I am qualified to make such judgements, but I do understand your argument.
I make no judgement on my parents other than as I found life under their guidance. I have no complaints.
Quote by GnV
Perhaps France is more tolerant and understanding in it's approach to 15 year olds. Maybe it's time for the UK to wise up and face the reality that kids grow up much more (perhaps too) quickly and the law/society must adapt.
Maybe France have it all wrong as they usually do, in that maybe they should raise it to a more acceptable level? I think 18 is the age of being an adult and I think it should be raised to that.
kindly say what being an adult has to do with being capable of making life changing decisions.
Quote by GnV
By the way, I somehow doubt that they 'eloped' as it was quaintly written in one popular paper, to France in order just to have sex and I don't subscribe to the too simplified view that the teacher owed her a duty of care not to fall in love.
No GnV from what I read he was under investigation for the " affair " and was about to be suspended by his school. I also heard that this had been going on when she was 14. That is a total cop out GnV and I would have guessed other more left wing minded on here would have used that as an argument, but not you.
Perhaps you don't know me that well after all, star....
Quote by GnV
It doesn't always work like that.
No thankfully it does not, as most teachers respect their responsibilities towards their pupils, and realise that any feelings they may have for a pupil, that it is wrong and they know the consequences of those actions.
I though am unsure as to what he will be charged with. Abduction of a minor? What happens if she says she went willingly and decides not to give any evidence against him? What happens if she refuses to give any evidence about anything? This is a difficult one for the law, and if the law does anything to him then it is possible that she could run away yet again with him. On this one I think I shall let the courts decide IF he has indeed done anything wrong, but he has thrown away his marriage and his career and possibly his freedom if they were to send him to prison. He knew this and so I wonder about his obvious feelings here towards her.
Perhaps I am more a romantic than you give me credit for star :grin:
Quote by starlightcouple
I though am unsure as to what he will be charged with. Abduction of a minor? What happens if she says she went willingly and decides not to give any evidence against him? What happens if she refuses to give any evidence about anything? This is a difficult one for the law
It doesn't matter if she consented; it is like statutory in that the law applies based on the age of the child and the action - the child's consent is irrelevant. I doubt it will be all that tricky to put a case together, and I'm pretty sure he can be prosecuted even of the girl's parents don't want to press charges. But, I will double check that when I'm at my computer (rather than on my iPhone!)
Quote by starlightcouple
On this one I think I shall let the courts decide.
How very generous of you! I'm sure they'll be delighted!! ;-)
Quote by Lilith
It doesn't matter if she consented; it is like statutory in that the law applies based on the age of the child and the action - the child's consent is irrelevant. I doubt it will be all that tricky to put a case together, and I'm pretty sure he can be prosecuted even of the girl's parents don't want to press charges. But, I will double check that when I'm at my computer (rather than on my iPhone!)
As far as I am aware if SHE makes no complaints against him or refuses to give any evidence against him, then there is no case to answer?
That was the case with cases up until recently.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Who is saying that they had sex?
Seriously? Do you personally believe they were enjoying a platonic, chaste and pure relationship?
I realise we have no proof either way, but I'd lay serious money on it.
Quote by GnV
Who is saying that they had sex?
I didn't say they had - I was comparing the crime of child abduction to that of statutory . I'm not sure of the answer to star's question yet though.
But, having said that, I'd put money on a bet that they had more than a platonic relationship!!!
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.
"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.
Thank you Lilith for the information you provided.
I will still be interested to see if the law will actually be used in this case.
After what this guy has already lost, will it actually serve any purpose? We all have heard the saying about if a parent tries to stop their child from seeing someone, that it will only make the child even more determined to defy their parents. Usually in virtually every case nowadays that involves children, their identities are kept from the public but now we all know who she is I wonder if we shall hear her side of the story.
I am also sure that this was not a relationship without any sexual activity, but until we know different we shall just have to speculate on that question. But if they did have a sexual relationship, will the law also charge him with with a minor? Will any conviction against him only make her even more determined to be with him?
This is actually a very good thread and I will watch the laws outcome very closely.
I will still be interested to see if the law will actually be used in this case.
After what this guy has already lost, will it actually serve any purpose? We all have heard the saying about if a parent tries to stop their child from seeing someone, that it will only make the child even more determined to defy their parents. Usually in virtually every case nowadays that involves children, their identities are kept from the public but now we all know who she is I wonder if we shall hear her side of the story.
I am also sure that this was not a relationship without any sexual activity, but until we know different we shall just have to speculate on that question. But if they did have a sexual relationship, will the law also charge him with with a minor? Will any conviction against him only make her even more determined to be with him?
This is actually a very good thread and I will watch the laws outcome very closely.
Quote by starlightcouple
After what this guy has already lost, will it actually serve any purpose?
I think there is a wider question of what is in the public interest here, and not just what is best for the child in question. So, I do think that a prosecution will serve a purpose. In light of the media attention, I think it will be deemed to be very important to set an example here, particularly given the role of responsibility and trust of the man in question.
In addition to the public interest, I imagine that her parents will also have suffered a lot of distress as a result of the incident, and it seems (from flicking through old caselaw) that her family will be viewed as victims in the circumstances, even if the girl does not herself feel as though she is a victim of any crime (except, perhaps, what she may consider to be a crime against "true love"...)
As an aside, I find it interesting (but unsurprising) that we have gravitated in this thread from a moral debate to a discussion about the law. Morality and the law are closely related (particularly in the context of criminal law) - the criminal law is often (to my mind) a reflection of the majority public view on any given moral question. So, it's very interesting to discuss this issue both as a general moral question (as some have done) and in the context of a debate about the adequacy/role of the criminal justice system.
Quote by starlightcouple
I will still be interested to see if the law will actually be used in this case.
He's being sent for extradition, the "law" is already being used.
Quote by starlightcouple
After what this guy has already lost, will it actually serve any purpose? We all have heard the saying about if a parent tries to stop their child from seeing someone, that it will only make the child even more determined to defy their parents. Usually in virtually every case nowadays that involves children, their identities are kept from the public but now we all know who she is I wonder if we shall hear her side of the story.
Serve any purpose??? he abducted a child, it requires the full might of the law to descend upon him.
A childs identity is not kept secret in an abduction case, or would you rather that we wouldn't have known about Madeleine McCann, Shannon Matthews, April Jones et al?
Quote by starlightcouple
I am also sure that this was not a relationship without any sexual activity, but until we know different we shall just have to speculate on that question. But if they did have a sexual relationship, will the law also charge him with with a minor? Will any conviction against him only make her even more determined to be with him?
This is actually a very good thread and I will watch the laws outcome very closely.
I can't believe you are defending his actions. Abduction of a minor is a very serious offence, end of.
Quote by Rogue_trader
He's being sent for extradition, the "law" is already being used.
I am aware of that Rogue, but do you know why he is at all? He has agreed to it himself. Plus I think you knew what I meant in my original comment. I shall have to be a bit more specific, the law in this country.
Quote by Rogue_trader
Serve any purpose??? he abducted a child, it requires the full might of the law to descend upon him.
He did not abduct a child in the way you seem to be implying. She went willingly with him and you have obviously found him guilty of everything, but for me I shall let the law decide on his guilt, and not someone on a internet site.
Quote by Rogue_trader
A childs identity is not kept secret in an abduction case, or would you rather that we wouldn't have known about Madeleine McCann, Shannon Matthews, April Jones et al?
Of course not but you are twisting things to suit your own argument, I suppose we can all be guilty of that one, even me.
Quote by Rogue_trader
I can't believe you are defending his actions. Abduction of a minor is a very serious offence, end of.
A minor? She is a minor when it suits and an adult when it suits something else. Are you seriously telling me that it was he and he alone who is to blame here? Even this morning her Father has stated to the press that he hopes he does not go to prison, and that his own Daughter also has to take some of the blame.
How crazy would the whole system be if the law finds him guilty and sends him to prison, and she actually goes to visit him, and then on his release they continue to see each other as the Father has also suggested. Her own Father is issuing some defending comments towards him. I wonder why? Maybe she is a lot more grown up than her years may suggest. I am certainly not defending him in any way as far as the trust issue is concerned, all I am saying is that she must also take some of the responsibility, even at 15.
Would I be right in thinking that one of the statutory defences against either likely charge is that the defendant believed (or had no reason to disbelieve) that the 'child' was 16 and therefore able in law to provide her consent to either activity.
Girls grow up so quickly these days and society itself encourages it (except when it suits society not to). As a teacher in the same school she attended, I doubt that he would have unfettered access to her personal details such as her date of birth so would have to rely on her truthfulness to establish her age. If she told a little 'porky' about her age (the class year she was placed in wouldn't necessarily be definitive) and he had no reason to disbelieve her, then the CPS might find it difficult to satisfy one other important test - that a prosecution would likely be successful.
Girls grow up so quickly these days and society itself encourages it (except when it suits society not to). As a teacher in the same school she attended, I doubt that he would have unfettered access to her personal details such as her date of birth so would have to rely on her truthfulness to establish her age. If she told a little 'porky' about her age (the class year she was placed in wouldn't necessarily be definitive) and he had no reason to disbelieve her, then the CPS might find it difficult to satisfy one other important test - that a prosecution would likely be successful.
Quote by GnV
Would I be right in thinking that one of the statutory defences against either likely charge is that the defendant believed (or had no reason to disbelieve) that the 'child' was 16 and therefore able in law to provide her consent to either activity.
Girls grow up so quickly these days and society itself encourages it (except when it suits society not to). As a teacher in the same school she attended, I doubt that he would have unfettered access to her personal details such as her date of birth so would have to rely on her truthfulness to establish her age. If she told a little 'porky' about her age (the class year she was placed in wouldn't necessarily be definitive) and he had no reason to disbelieve her, then the CPS might find it difficult to satisfy one other important test - that a prosecution would likely be successful.
Yes - the statutory provisions say that "in proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for that person to prove that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed the child had attained the age of sixteen."
This is mere speculation, but I think it may be difficult for him to run that defence. Teachers do have access to a lot of personal information about their pupils. And, I think it's a tricky defence in any event, as the onus is on the defendant to prove that he reasonably believed she was 16 - he needs to give good reasons for that, and I doubt "she told me she was 16" is terribly convincing...
Quote by Lilith
snip...
This is mere speculation, but I think it may be difficult for him to run that defence. Teachers do have access to a lot of personal information about their pupils. And, I think it's a tricky defence in any event, as the onus is on the defendant to prove that he reasonably believed she was 16 - he needs to give good reasons for that, and I doubt "she told me she was 16" is terribly convincing...
Except perhaps if she testifies in his defence that she told him she was 16?
Remember that this is not a 'taken against her will' or forced sex (if such an act took place at all - on English soil) issue.
As a prosecution witness, she could be deemed hostile and could be very effective as a defence witness - if they have their stories correct.
The prosecution's job is to destroy his credibility and that of any defence witness. I think they will be hard pressed to do a demolition job on her for all sorts of reasons and if the two of them keep their cool and have briefed well before his detention, he could walk away from it.
Moreover, it is not implausible that he, as a mere maths teacher not her form master, would not have had access to her personal details. Why would he need such information in his role as a teacher of mathematics? Does the school have a register of accesses to personal information and if not, is it not pure speculation that he was able to glean such privileged information. If there is such a register and he registered his interest in this pupil's record, that would be an entirely different matter.
GnV would she not have been in a certain year at school? He surely would have known what year she was in and there is speculation that they were seeing each other when she was 14. Nevertheless I am sure that he would have known her year at school and therefore would have known that she was nowhere near 16. If his defense were to possibly use that as an argument in his case, I think a jury would disregard that in an instant.
As I have already said this is a trust issue. We do not know as yet if this was a sexual relationship for sure, and I wonder if charging him with abduction when she clearly went with him, would be enough for a conviction. Plus from what I have read as soon as he is back in the UK she wants to see him. Can anyone stop her from seeing him? If he is released on bail, they could meet up and where would the prosecutions case be then?
If we were to find out from her that it was a sexual relationship, then of course he could also be charged with having sex with a minor, but at 15 and looking more like an adult than a child in what the media are insinuating as to her knowing exactly what she was doing, would society then be partly to blame for the way it almost condones sexual behavior in what it sells to that age group? I have read magazines aimed at very young teenagers where there are stories about oral and anal sex in them. Girls are lunged towards adulthood by many organisations theses days and should they also take a bit more responsibility in what it aims at under age girls?
There is a youth club near to me where it holds " disco " nights for the under 16's. You should see what not only these girls are wearing , but the way their clothes portray them as not children but as adults. Are the parents to blame for allowing their children to go out dressed like adult hookers almost? I would net have let my 13 year old go out dressed in a mini skirt around her arse. No excuses other than to ask are we as a society also to blame for the sexualisation of children?
As I have already said this is a trust issue. We do not know as yet if this was a sexual relationship for sure, and I wonder if charging him with abduction when she clearly went with him, would be enough for a conviction. Plus from what I have read as soon as he is back in the UK she wants to see him. Can anyone stop her from seeing him? If he is released on bail, they could meet up and where would the prosecutions case be then?
If we were to find out from her that it was a sexual relationship, then of course he could also be charged with having sex with a minor, but at 15 and looking more like an adult than a child in what the media are insinuating as to her knowing exactly what she was doing, would society then be partly to blame for the way it almost condones sexual behavior in what it sells to that age group? I have read magazines aimed at very young teenagers where there are stories about oral and anal sex in them. Girls are lunged towards adulthood by many organisations theses days and should they also take a bit more responsibility in what it aims at under age girls?
There is a youth club near to me where it holds " disco " nights for the under 16's. You should see what not only these girls are wearing , but the way their clothes portray them as not children but as adults. Are the parents to blame for allowing their children to go out dressed like adult hookers almost? I would net have let my 13 year old go out dressed in a mini skirt around her arse. No excuses other than to ask are we as a society also to blame for the sexualisation of children?
Quote by flower411
I`m guessing, but I`d have thought that if he`d been on a school trip he`d have to be aware which pupils were under 16.
But under any circumstances if I was on a jury I`d take some convincing that a teacher didn`t have a pretty good idea of the ages of his pupils.
But not necessarily flower. The teachers would be in loco parentis in any event, whether or not the student was 16 or above. The trip leader might be made aware but not necessarily the others of the individual ages of participants.
As for being convinced in a Court of Law as a juror, you would be guided in that respect by the Judge's directions on matters of law in circumstances where there is reasonable doubt and a statutory defence is claimed. You might remain unconvinced as an individual, as is your right, but as a member of a jury you might not have the opportunity to express your doubts outside the jury room when determining guilt or innocence.
Quote by star
Would she not have been in a certain year at school?
I did cover that point. I can't be certain how it works these days but when I did know about these things (a millennium ago), the age range in a class year could cross the range between (in this case) 15 and 16 year olds.
Perhaps older 15's and younger 16's
Further, if my understanding is correct, it might not go to Crown Court. The offence of child abduction can be dealt with summarily in the lower courts.
