15 year old girl elopes with her teacher
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The consent of the child is no defence.
This takes me right back 30 years to actually being 14 and the view expressed by those in positions of trust that a child cannot know its own mind. In retrospect I usually knew better (I was one of those terrible children that asked 'why?' a lot and logically extrapolated from the answers given to tear any reasoning to shreds, ending up with "because I say so" as the ultimate reason), but woe betide me if I ever pointed it out. Our educators don't like being publicly shown their fallibility by those they are allegedly responsible for. I'm not giving more details publicly or privately, but I have a long standing interest in the subject of consent, particularly where it involves the clearly expressed wishes of minors that are able to make a decision being ignored. I don't donate to Liberty every month simply because Shami Chakaribati is hawt.Principles interest me more than specific cases, and while attempting to debate law with you is the equivalent of me challenging you to a duel where you get an AK-47 and I get a peashooter, given the relative amount of knowledge held on the subject, I think the text I quoted is where my entire problem lies. Statute treats under 18s (16 in some cases) as imbeciles, incapable of making any decision of consequence about themselves until reason arrives, fully formed on their 18th birthday as if a switch has been thrown. The common law does rather better, because our senior judges seem able to think, where our legislators often don't.
I can't find the rest of this on bailii (which is where you often say to go look this stuff up) so don't have the context other than that it concerns waning parental rights as a child gets older. R v D 1984 AC 778, in case your search powers are greater than mine.
Brandon said:
'I see no good reason why, in relation to the kidnapping of a child, it should not in all cases be the absence of the child's consent which is material, whatever its age may be. In the case of a very young child, it would not have the understanding or the intelligence to give its consent, so that absence of consent would be a necessary inference from its age. In the case of an older child, however, it must, I think, be a question of fact for a jury whether the child concerned has sufficient understanding and intelligence to give its consent if, but only if, the jury considers that a child has these qualities, it must then go on to consider whether it has been proved that the child did not give its consent. While the matter will always be for the jury alone to decide, I should not expect a jury to find at all frequently that a child under 14 had sufficient understanding and intelligence to give its consent.'
You'll probably be able to tell me it's not relevant at all (especially if you have access to the whole thing so some proper context), however to my reading of the above it appears that Lord Brandon accepted that the child's consent or lack thereof was entirely relevant in a kidnapping case, if the child had sufficient understanding. So, as a teenager I felt let down by society, not because it was not protecting me but because it was crushing me by denying my ability to make my own decisions and ignoring my wishes. I have no sympathy for Mr Forrest. I have considerable sympathy for the unnamed girl, as despite being the victim on which all of this is based, what she is saying is apparently being discounted by people that consider themselves her elders and betters. Yes, that's based on my own personal experience rather than lengthy interaction with the criminal justice system and criminals, but I remember well enough how it felt (albeit in a vastly less serious context).
Breadvan72 said:
I can't see how this guy is going to succeed on a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, but we shall see.
Is he not going to rely on the X Factor justice system that seems to exist these days?Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 17th June 19:39
It seems you can be guilty of a crime but public opinion weighs against the word of the law...
VinceFox said:
Ok, here's a question. Given what we've read today, what should he face?
What penalty for being a knob? If ever there was a reason to debar people from going from school to college, then back to school, this is it. Well Hall got 15 months for a bit of groping, and this guy had sex with the girl. Probably 200 years in the state pen then.Breadvan72 said:
The statutory offence under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is as follows:-
Well...Parliament said:
Offence of abduction of child by other persons.
(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
The consent of the child is no defence. A child cannot lawfully consent to be abducted and cannot consent to sex with an adult. I can't see how this guy is going to succeed on a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, but we shall see. (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
He didn't "take", she was going there anyway.
He didn't "detain", she was happy to stay.
While consent isn't allowed for here it is there apparently.
VinceFox said:
Ok, here's a question. Given what we've read today, what should he face?
His life is effectively ruined. Anything beyond that is pointless and vengeful. But I suppose we could feed him and let him watch telly for six months with some of his peers... become a suicidal drug addict and be a further weight on an already stretched NHS for years to come. Oh no, forget that, we'd be paying for his 'crime' then.Breadvan72] The bottom line is that this guy exploited an immature person for his sexual amusement. He deserves a moderate stay in the nonce wing. said:
Really? A nonce?In many countries, including civilised ones, 15yo's are quite legal. Given the obvious lack of force, I really think the only thing he is guilty of is abusing his position of trust. A lifetime ban on teaching should be enough punishment.
thehawk said:
Breadvan72] The bottom line is that this guy exploited an immature person for his sexual amusement. He deserves a moderate stay in the nonce wing. said:
Really? A nonce?In many countries, including civilised ones, 15yo's are quite legal. Given the obvious lack of force, I really think the only thing he is guilty of is abusing his position of trust. A lifetime ban on teaching should be enough punishment.
cymtriks said:
Breadvan72 said:
The statutory offence under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is as follows:-
Well...Parliament said:
Offence of abduction of child by other persons.
(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
The consent of the child is no defence. A child cannot lawfully consent to be abducted and cannot consent to sex with an adult. I can't see how this guy is going to succeed on a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, but we shall see. (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
He didn't "take", she was going there anyway.
He didn't "detain", she was happy to stay.
While consent isn't allowed for here it is there apparently.
If you look at the evidence , here was a teacher , who simply failed in his public and moral duties , the fact that he openly googled " prison sentances for haveing sex with minors " made him culpable for pre-meditating the act and speaks volumes .
in the same way Murder differs from Manslaughter
guilty as charged 3 years prison will serve 15 months
He's only being charged with abduction isn't he? The sexual component of their relationship, whilst clearly of singular interest to the media narrative, isn't as far as I'm aware strictly relevant?
I'm certainly not going to defend him, but I do think you can have a point of view that isn't binary. I'm in agreement with onomatopoeia that the notion that ability to give consent and free will being a switch that gets thrown when you're 18 is silly, whilst also realising that the law has to work on absolutes and thresholds to function.
The guy is clearly very stupid to have acted on his thoughts, and abused his position of authority and responsibility, but given her evidence - said in the cold light of day and after several months being apart - appears to support rather than damn him I'm struggling to see the justification for significant prison sentences.
I'm certainly not going to defend him, but I do think you can have a point of view that isn't binary. I'm in agreement with onomatopoeia that the notion that ability to give consent and free will being a switch that gets thrown when you're 18 is silly, whilst also realising that the law has to work on absolutes and thresholds to function.
The guy is clearly very stupid to have acted on his thoughts, and abused his position of authority and responsibility, but given her evidence - said in the cold light of day and after several months being apart - appears to support rather than damn him I'm struggling to see the justification for significant prison sentences.
Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 18th June 05:47
cymtriks said:
Breadvan72 said:
The statutory offence under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is as follows:-
Well...Parliament said:
Offence of abduction of child by other persons.
(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
The consent of the child is no defence. A child cannot lawfully consent to be abducted and cannot consent to sex with an adult. I can't see how this guy is going to succeed on a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, but we shall see. (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
He didn't "take", she was going there anyway.
He didn't "detain", she was happy to stay.
While consent isn't allowed for here it is there apparently.
Also, the idea that this bloke was just accompanying the child on a trip appears to be counter factual. He made the travel arrangements and conducted the journey, thereby removing the child from the lawful control of her parents. The concept of "take" doesn't have to include some sort of violent kidnapping.
As for consent, it would be virtually impossible to have any enforceable laws about child protection unless some absolutes were set by reference to age. Lord Brandon's opinion cited above pre dated the Child Abduction Act. I don't think that setting the age of consent at 16 sets it too high. It seems to me a reasonable level, recalling what it is like to be a teenager, and thinking of the teenagers I have met as an adult. The fact that other countries set the age lower doesn't appear to me to matter.
There is no charge here of rape. This is because the teacher was extradited only on the abduction charge. This means that the prosecution is not permitted to present another charge. Abduction was the charge selected at extradition because it was a simple one to prove, and at the time of extradition there was no clear evidence of rape. There is such evidence now, but it can't form the basis of a charge.
An important element here is the abuse of the trust between a teacher and a pupil, a public servant and the public. I am surprised at how many people appear willing to let the bloke off.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 18th June 07:41
Onomatopoeia, here is the context of Lord Brandon's observation in R v D:-
The Law Reports said:
The defendant was convicted upon indictment of kidnapping his five-year-old daughter, a ward of court, who was in the care and control of her mother. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal against conviction and held that there was no such offence as the kidnapping of a child who was under the age of 14 years, that the offence of kidnapping could not be committed by a parent against his own unmarried minor child and that in view of the remedies for contempt of court available for dealing with a parent who acted contrary to the order of a court, it was undesirable that the defendant's conduct should be brought within the province of the criminal law.
On appeal by the Crown: -
Held, allowing the appeal,
(1) that the common law offence of kidnapping in relation to children under 14 remained unaffected by the statutory offence of child stealing so that where the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping, namely the taking or carrying away of one person by another by force or by fraud without the consent of that other person and without lawful excuse, were proved, an offence was committed even though the victim was a child under the age of 14 (post, pp. 796F - 797A, 800F-G, 803E - 804A).
People v. Edge [1943] I.R. 115 considered.
(2) That although a father's paramount authority in the family would have provided a lawful excuse in respect of the kidnapping of an unmarried child under the age of majority in the past, that defence was no longer available in the changed social and legal attitudes of the present when parents were treated as having equal authority over their children, so that a father could not plead his rights as a father as a lawful excuse and therefore could commit the offence of kidnapping his own child (post, pp. 796F - 797A, 805B-G).
(3) That, as a matter of general policy, it was desirable that parents who snatched their own children in defiance of a court order should be dealt with in civil proceedings for contempt of court, save in exceptional cases where the parent's conduct was so bad that an ordinary right-thinking person would unhesitatingly regard it as conduct of a criminal nature; that the defendant's conduct amply justified the decision to prosecute him and that, *779 accordingly, the order of the Court of Appeal should be set aside and the conviction for kidnapping restored (post, pp. 796F - 797A, 805G-H, 806E-H, 807A-C).
Per curiam. (i) Absence of consent of the person having custody or care and control of the child is not material to the issue of whether the taking was with or without the child's consent. Absence of consent would be a necessary inference in the case of a very young child not having the understanding or intelligence to give its consent. In the case of an older child it would be a question of fact for the jury but only if they found that the child concerned possessed those qualities should they proceed to consider whether in fact absence of consent had been proved. It would not frequently occur that a child under 14 would have sufficient understanding and intelligence to consent (post, p. 806C-E).
(ii) It is extremely undesirable that there should in any circumstances be any private prosecutions for the kidnapping by a parent of his own child (post, p. 806H).
Per Lord Bridge of Harwich. It is preferable not to answer the question whether a parent may be convicted of the common law offence of kidnapping where the child victim is unmarried and under the age of majority, with an unqualified affirmative. The preferred answer would be that that is possible when the parent acts in contravention of the order of a court of competent jurisdiction restricting his or her parental rights, leaving open the question whether it is possible in other circumstances (post, p. 797C-D).
Decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), post p. 781E; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 112; [1984] 1 All E.R. 574 reversed.
On appeal by the Crown: -
Held, allowing the appeal,
(1) that the common law offence of kidnapping in relation to children under 14 remained unaffected by the statutory offence of child stealing so that where the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping, namely the taking or carrying away of one person by another by force or by fraud without the consent of that other person and without lawful excuse, were proved, an offence was committed even though the victim was a child under the age of 14 (post, pp. 796F - 797A, 800F-G, 803E - 804A).
People v. Edge [1943] I.R. 115 considered.
(2) That although a father's paramount authority in the family would have provided a lawful excuse in respect of the kidnapping of an unmarried child under the age of majority in the past, that defence was no longer available in the changed social and legal attitudes of the present when parents were treated as having equal authority over their children, so that a father could not plead his rights as a father as a lawful excuse and therefore could commit the offence of kidnapping his own child (post, pp. 796F - 797A, 805B-G).
(3) That, as a matter of general policy, it was desirable that parents who snatched their own children in defiance of a court order should be dealt with in civil proceedings for contempt of court, save in exceptional cases where the parent's conduct was so bad that an ordinary right-thinking person would unhesitatingly regard it as conduct of a criminal nature; that the defendant's conduct amply justified the decision to prosecute him and that, *779 accordingly, the order of the Court of Appeal should be set aside and the conviction for kidnapping restored (post, pp. 796F - 797A, 805G-H, 806E-H, 807A-C).
Per curiam. (i) Absence of consent of the person having custody or care and control of the child is not material to the issue of whether the taking was with or without the child's consent. Absence of consent would be a necessary inference in the case of a very young child not having the understanding or intelligence to give its consent. In the case of an older child it would be a question of fact for the jury but only if they found that the child concerned possessed those qualities should they proceed to consider whether in fact absence of consent had been proved. It would not frequently occur that a child under 14 would have sufficient understanding and intelligence to consent (post, p. 806C-E).
(ii) It is extremely undesirable that there should in any circumstances be any private prosecutions for the kidnapping by a parent of his own child (post, p. 806H).
Per Lord Bridge of Harwich. It is preferable not to answer the question whether a parent may be convicted of the common law offence of kidnapping where the child victim is unmarried and under the age of majority, with an unqualified affirmative. The preferred answer would be that that is possible when the parent acts in contravention of the order of a court of competent jurisdiction restricting his or her parental rights, leaving open the question whether it is possible in other circumstances (post, p. 797C-D).
Decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), post p. 781E; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 112; [1984] 1 All E.R. 574 reversed.
Breadvan72 said:
I am surprised at how many people appear willing to let the bloke off.
I think it stems from the reality that a 15-year old child is far more mentally competent in making the judgements that a 13-year old child. People recognise this even though the law has a specific age as a cut-off and treats all the same.I don't think anyone's saying what the bloke did was right and doesn't deserve punishment.
A 15 year old does have better judgment than a 13 year old in most cases, but is still immature and susceptible to the influence of others, and note that the relationship in this case started when the girl was 14, if not 13.
It is commonplace for teenagers male and female to become infatuated with a teacher, male or female. The responsible teacher is aware of this and is careful not to encourage the infatuation.
Custody? Maybe yes, to reflect the grave breach of parental and public trust, and the exploitation of the child.
It is commonplace for teenagers male and female to become infatuated with a teacher, male or female. The responsible teacher is aware of this and is careful not to encourage the infatuation.
Custody? Maybe yes, to reflect the grave breach of parental and public trust, and the exploitation of the child.
XCP said:
McWigglebum4th said:
I'm struggling to see how throwing him in jail will make me as a member of society safer
Assuming you are not a teenage girl, So am I.But have you considered that might not be the point?
McWigglebum4th said:
XCP said:
McWigglebum4th said:
I'm struggling to see how throwing him in jail will make me as a member of society safer
Assuming you are not a teenage girl, So am I.But have you considered that might not be the point?
cymtriks said:
Well...
He didn't "take", she was going there anyway.
He didn't "detain", she was happy to stay.
While consent isn't allowed for here it is there apparently.
I add the following, which, on the facts already disclosed, kiboshes your argument:-He didn't "take", she was going there anyway.
He didn't "detain", she was happy to stay.
While consent isn't allowed for here it is there apparently.
Section 3 Child Abduction Act 1984 said:
Construction of references to taking, sending and detaining.
For the purposes of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person shall be regarded as taking a child if he causes or induces the child to accompany him or any other person or causes the child to be taken;
(b) a person shall be regarded as sending a child if he causes the child to be sent;
(c) a person shall be regarded as detaining a child if he causes the child to be detained or induces the child to remain with him or any other person.
...
For the purposes of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person shall be regarded as taking a child if he causes or induces the child to accompany him or any other person or causes the child to be taken;
(b) a person shall be regarded as sending a child if he causes the child to be sent;
(c) a person shall be regarded as detaining a child if he causes the child to be detained or induces the child to remain with him or any other person.
...
RYH64E said:
McWigglebum4th said:
XCP said:
McWigglebum4th said:
I'm struggling to see how throwing him in jail will make me as a member of society safer
Assuming you are not a teenage girl, So am I.But have you considered that might not be the point?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff