Ray Teret, Double Standards & FOI's - an Update

Dear Mr Bougeard

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

I refer to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 22 December 2014.

The FOI Act gives you the right to know whether we hold the information you want and to have it communicated to you, subject to any exemptions which may apply. It is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public. 

In your request you referred to the sentencing remarks relating to Ray Teret’s conviction, who was recently sentenced to 25 years for child abuse charges.  You asked the following questions below and I have supplied our answer in bold font next to each question:

 

Please could you let me know: 

 

1)   Was the charge of "intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16" considered to begin with? (Yes or No) Yes

2)   Due to the length of time between the crime and disclosure, was the charge amended to "indecent assault" to guarantee a conviction? (Yes or No) No

3)   If question 1) was "No", why was it No? N/A

4) Ray Teret was cleared of various other sexual offences in relation to six other complainants - a)  did any of these relate to the crime "intercourse with girl between 13 and 15", No 

and b) was he cleared because of the 12 month timescale (Yes or No to 'a' and 'b' ) No

I trust this information assists.

 

Needless to say, one further FOI has been submitted in relation to questions and answers one and two.

 

More to follow when I receive an update.

 

In the meantime, please keep signing & sharing my petition

Timescales and Sexual Offences, an Update

The petition that I started here has now been going for about a month and a half, and now has nearly 400 signatures.

 

Hopefully all who have read my blog have signed it - if not WHY? - sign it now, it only takes a minute!

 

I have managed to find out the history of this disclosure timescale, and include this below.

 

A week or so ago, I had a reply from Mr Chown, head of Criminal Procedure at the Ministry of Justice, outlining where this 12 month limit originated. I will reproduce part of his e-mail below and elaborate a bit on this after:

 

"The time limit was of long standing, dating back to 1885; as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained in the House of Lords case of R v J, it was originally shorter:

“Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 provided that no prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16) should be commenced more than three months after the commission of the offence. Section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 increased the time limit to six months. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922 increased the period to nine months. Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928 made a further increase to 12 months. That provision was consolidated in the 1956 Act.”

 

The time limit was finally abolished when the 1956 Act was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but only prospectively, with effect from the date when that Act was brought into force in 2004.  In so legislating, Parliament followed the usual principle of non-retroactivity; Lord Steyn’s speech in R v J simply observed without further comment that “The change in the law is, of course, not of retrospective effect”.  Although retrospective removal of the time limit would not amount to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, it is clear that the bar to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural pre-conditions for the bringing of charges against an individual"

 

So, this goes back over 100 years to 1885!!

 

The original Law from 1885 itself an be read here and here (section 5) , and the bit that applies to this is "Provided also, that no prosecution shall de commenced for an offence under sub section one of this section more than 3 months after the commission of this offence".

 

I won't make this post too long, however, I will include a link that does explain further the reasons behind the original 3 month limit, and the reasons for raising it to 12 months. This link can be read here (it is rather long though) and includes the following 2 items:

 

"it was thought then that a girl who fell pregnant, and thus was unquestionably the victim of an offence, was so likely to name the wrong man that the accused needed the exceptional protection of a very short time limit, one which elapsed before her pregnancy had become obvious or even known" (this for the reasons of having the 3 month original timescale),

 

and

 

"it cannot long have been the supposed need to identify a perpetrator before a pregnancy became apparent, because the time limit was soon raised, first to six months by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904, then to nine months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922, and finally to 12 months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928. It was precisely because a pregnancy or childbirth might reveal the offence that the limit was raised. The reasons given for having any limit at all - loss of witnesses and the difficulties of proof - might equally apply to many other offences. But complainants in sexual offences were then still regarded with much more suspicion than other complainants, and so abolition may have been thought too radical to contemplate. However, it is hard to discern any coherent rationale after 1922, because the 1922 Act also provided that consent would no longer be a defence to an indecent assault upon a child or young person under the age of 16. Thus most forms of sexual activity with a girl under 16 became a criminal offence whether or not she consented, but no time limit was prescribed." for the raising of this limit.

 

 

What can be done to remove the 12 months for victims of this crime now disclosing abuse?

I will cover this soon in another posting.

 

Until then, please sign if you haven't yet done so, and please keep sharing and encouraging others to do so - the link is HERE this needs to be removed for the sake of "Sarah", "Sylvie" and "Jane", and all other victims of this crime who have been, and will be denied justice. 

Groomed for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to do anything.

My dad’s pal groomed me for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to touch him

 

 

 

 

 

"A woman who was 13 when she was groomed and sexually abused by a man twice her age had her case dropped because a controversial legal ­loophole allowed her attacker to go free.

Today, she tells her harrowing story of how the six-month relationship “ruined her life”.

The woman’s happy family life was destroyed and she was brought up in care, passed around by social services.

But when the victim realised she was abused and plucked up the courage to seek justice against the man she once trusted, she was told by the Crown Prosecution Service he could not be charged.

A letter from a senior prosecutor, seen by the Mirror, states: “If the law was different, I would have charged [Mr X] with having unlawful sexual intercourse.”

Sexual offence laws were changed in 2004 so an adult who had sex with a child under 16 could be ­prosecuted with no time limit attached.

But charges cannot be brought against anyone for “consensual” sex with a child under 16 if it happened before 2004 and no complaint is made within a year."

 

Appalling.

 

Yet another failing of victims, by an out of date law that makes no sense at all.

 

Firstly children cannot consent - that is why we have an age of consent (quite obvious really to the majority of the population).

 

Secondly, what idiot drew up this previous Law, that included a "one year timescale" to report "ostensible" consent for 13 to 15 years old? Who could consider that there would be any benefit in doing this at the time? What about victims who didn't disclose until after a year after "ostensibly" consenting to being groomed and abused by an adult?

 

Thirdly, what happens now? Another way to stop victims coming forward, if they think their abuser may argue this "consent", therefore making their disclosures "null and void"

 

What is the point of reporting abuse that happened prior to 2004, if this is the end result?

 

According to the Mirror article, "It is thought to have allowed hundreds of Britain’s worst abusers to walk free as the police are left powerless to charge them". Is this good enough? Not in the slightest. As I said firstly, Appalling!

 

Proof of this Law is in the enclosed two links. In this link here the section that refers to this offence is article 6 "Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen.". Sentencing guidelines relating to this can be found here, and this states "A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence".

 

As-such, I have created a petition on direct.gov to get this one year timescale removed for any future victims that come forward and disclose this type of grooming & rape. Why should victims of this crime, have their cases thrown out because of this unnecessary loophole? Why should some victims be allowed their day in court, and to see their suffering and abuse be dealt with (and hopefully with fair justice), whilst others have their abuse dismissed because of this unjust loophole from 10 years ago?

 

Please sign this and share it - 100,000 sigs needed before this can be considered for debate in the House of Commons - end date 10 June 2015. Thank you.

 

Petition

 

AVP and Rape

Extend the definition of rape to include female offenders

 

 

"Currently as it stands the legal definition for rape is:

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape in its first section, which reads:

“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— 

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, 

(b) B does not consent to the penetration.."

The current definition means that sex without consent does not always constitute rape. When a woman forces another person into sex she is not charged with rape which goes against rape crisis campaigns which state "no consent is rape"."

 

 

The above link is a newly created petition created by "Smash Devon" - please sign and share.

 

There seem to be many similar, but at the same time, different meanings to the term "rape", depending where you look up the meaning of the word. A couple of examples are below:

 

Dictionary.Reference.com states "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

Oxford Dictionary refers to rape as "A crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will". 

 

So, AVP, where does this come in?

 

In UK Law, as defined by the SoA 2003 as stated above, is gender specific, ie "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis" Under UK Law therefore, only a male can commit the offence of rape on either gender. If a female commits the offense of forcing another person into sex, it is either defined by law as Assault by penetration (even though, again, the SoA 2003 starts their definition with He), or Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (again with the He). By having separate distinction between genders, and by having legislation named as this, it minimises the offense committed by a female from Rape to a more general type of "Sexual Assault".

 

CPS Guidelines have both offenses ("Rape" and "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which as stated in this link is "a female equivalent of the offence of rape") as Indictable Only offenses, both which carry a maximum of Life Imprisonment, so why the difference in the naming of the offence?

 

Having the crime of rape described in this way, (ie can only be committed by a male), is prejudicial to any victim that has been raped by a female perpetrator. Having the crime that has been committed against them lumped together with any other type of "sexual assault" minimises the seriousness of the crime and this needs to change.

 

If both the type of offense is the same (indictable only), and the punishment for offenders supposedly being the same (maximum of life), where is the issue with having the one offense of rape which covers both genders of offender?

 

Having a quick search online, brought up this story from 2012 from the USA, which includes "a significant expansion of the FBI’s definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.", which shows that this can be done.

 

Rape is rape, rape should legally mean one person (no matter what gender) forcing another person (no matter what gender) into sex. The end result is the same for victims - no difference - so the crime should be the same. Until it is, victims of female rapists will always have the crime committed against them trivialised and society will always view this as a lesser crime.

 

And, if you haven't yet, please sign the petition at the top.

This Legistation is an Utter Ass & Needs Changing.

 

 

11 April 2014

 

Anger As Paedophile Demands Victim Photos

 

 

"A paedophile is allowed to have intimate photos of a young girl he abused because the police cannot erase them from his confiscated laptop before they return it to him.

The man was jailed for nine years in 2013 after admitting a number of sex offences including assaulting a child under the age of 13.

He has formally asked for a laptop and a mobile telephone to be handed back, according to human rights campaigner Liberty, which is representing the victim and her family.

Photos of the victim dressed in swimwear and leotards are on the computer, but Dorset Police say they cannot delete them because they are not legally classified as indecent or prohibited.

Consequently, the man, who is in his 50s and cannot be named for legal reasons, will still have access to a large number of personal photos of one girl when he is freed"

 

 

23 April 2014

 

Dorset paedophile to lose images of abuse victim after police U-turn

 

 

"Dorset Police will delete images of sex attack victims from an offender’s laptop despite being told it would be against the law to do so. Earlier this year, officers were asked to refuse the return of a laptop and other electronic devices to a man who had been convicted of sexual offences. The equipment was seized during the initial stages of the investigation, but was not used during court proceedings as it contained no indecent images.

Current legislation indicates the police should return all equipment to its owner in its original condition. However, Dorset Police believe returning the images would be incompatible with the victims’ privacy rights under European law"

 

 

Good news you may think, and in this case, a resounding YES.

 

However, current legislation that was used to seize this offenders laptop & phones states that if nothing illegal is found on them they need to be returned in their original condition - despite there being photographs of his victim on them in leotards and swimwear (not considered "Indecent" under categories A to C of IIOC).

 

Staggering isn't it?

 

The (in)human rights of the offender yet again outweighs the rights of the victim.

 

Ask yourself, should someone who abuses a child and has images / films of them stored on his/her computer be allowed to keep these images? These images may not be "indecent" in themselves, but the purpose of them being kept is certainly "indecent".

 

Should victims have to simply acknowledge legislation as it stands and put up with it?

 

No, of course not. Legislation as it stands is wrong. Sex offenders and paedophiles should not be allowed to keep images/films of their victims.

 

And this is where YOU come in.

 

Martyn Underhill, Dorset's Police & Crime Commissioner has started a petition to get this legislation changed.

 

Please click Here to add your name to this petition to stop sex offenders retaining photo's of their victims.

 

Please please share this as well - please help Martyn get this to 100,000 signatures and therefore considered for debate in the House of Commons. This needs to change and change ASAP!

 

Imagine if your child was a victim of a paedophile.

 

Imagine if the offender had photographs or films of your child on their computer.

 

Would YOU be happy for them to legally keep these photographs.........?

 

 

***** Small update from Jersey - please see below reply from the relevant authorities here: 

"In any proceedings locally the court will make an order for destruction of devices containing Indecent Images of Children (IIOC) OR relevant material.

We would ensure that in these circumstances, as you set out below, the court were asked to make a complete destruction order. Any image of a victim we would argue is ‘relevant’."

Good news here then! ******

Spared Jail for rape of a three year old, and a petition.

Du Pont Heir Robert Richards IV Spared Jail for Raping Three-Year-Old Daughter

 

Judge J Jurden

 

 

"A multimillionaire who pleaded guilty to raping his three-year-old daughter has been spared jail after a judge in Delaware ruled he would "not fare well" in prison.

Robert H Richards IV, heir to the du Pont chemical business, was given eight years' probation and ordered to seek treatment after he admitted to raping his three-year-old daughter in 2009.

Judge Jan Jurden ruled that Richards, 46, should not be handed a custodial sentence as he would "not fare well in Level 5 [prison] setting".

Details about the sentence only emerged after the defendant's former wife, Tracy, filed a lawsuit against him seeking compensation and punitive damages over the abuse of their daughter and his son.

According to the lawsuit, Richards admitted to assaulting his son and daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was originally charged with two counts of second-degree child rape, which carry a 10-year minimum sentence.

Richards hired one of Delaware's top defence lawyers, Eugene Maure, who won a plea bargain.

Richards avoided a jail term after admitting one count of fourth-degree rape – a lesser charge which carries no mandatory minimum jail term.

Delaware public defender Brendan O'Neill, told the Detroit Press: "It's an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well.

"Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances."

O'Neil added the sentence "raised questions" about the treatment of wealthy people by the justice system."

 

 

I won't insult you by going through the injustice and appalling sentence this is.

 

As this is in a US Court, there are no schemes as far as I am aware for appealing this ULS as there is in the UK.

 

However, there is a petition to fire the Judge, Jan Jurden, for this disgusting decision. You have the power. Sign this petition, share and RT all you can. This can not and will not be tolerated.

 

Link to petition here Petition to Fire Judge Jan Jurden

 



 

Child Abuse disguised as 'Religion' - "to train up a child".

Guilty of murder for parenting by "To Train Up a Child"

 

 

"Two parents in Washington state have been found guilty of murder after allegedly following the abusive parenting techniques advocated in the parenting book "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl.
Larry and Carri Williams received the maximum prison sentences allowable under the law after being found guilty of beating and starving their adopted daughter Hana to death. The methods they used to "discipline" their daughter were advocated in the controversial Christian book.
Some of the discipline techniques the Pearls teach include:

• Using plastic tubing to beat children, since it is "too light to cause damage to the muscle or the bone”
• Wearing the plastic tubing around the parent's neck as a constant reminder to obey
• "Swatting" babies as young as six months old with instruments such as "a 12-inch willowy branch," thinner plastic tubing or a wooden spoon
• "Blanket training" babies by hitting them with an instrument if they try to crawl off a blanket on the floor
• Beating older children with rulers, paddles, belts and larger tree branches
• "Training" children with pain before they even disobey, in order to teach total obedience
• Giving cold water baths, putting children outside in cold weather and withholding meals as discipline
• Hosing off children who have potty training accidents
• Inflicting punishment until a child is "without breath to complain"

 

Recently, this was brought up in the House of Commons by MP Nadine Dorries, who, amongst others, have urged Amazon to withdraw this book - so far to no avail (it still being available here.)

If you can stomach it, it can be read here To Train Up A Child,- not easy reading !!

Seriously, this book should be removed from all online retailers, especially one like Amazon. Quite a few have already removed this, but not Amazon. Is it morally or ethical right for Amazon to profit from child abuse in this way?

There are two existing petitions, one for the UK and one for the USA , and there is also a new ePetition asking the UK Government to ban the sale of this book. Please add your signatures to one or more of these, and get others to do the same. Tweet Amazon - e-mail them (cis@amazon.com ), do whatever you can and want. This book is nothing to do with "training children to all parents who love their children" as quoted, this is a book filled with various ways of physically abusing babies and children under the supposed "guise" of religion. This book has been the catalyst of a number of deaths of children, and it really should be banned. If you are in any doubt why, read the book itself, or the various news articles of Hanna Williams , Lydia Schatz and Sean Paddock. Thank you