Religions > Atheism > Re: Sanity in Australia..who would have thought it with perverts like ramrod lurking in the shadows?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"bobandcarole" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2007 10:53:29 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Sanity in Australia..who would have thought it with perverts like ramrod lurking in the shadows? |
A TEENAGE boy has been awarded $7500 compensation in a landmark
ruling
after suffering mental shock when a pedophile asked to perform oral
sex on him.
The Queensland Court of Appeal today overturned a Brisbane District
Court judge's decision not to award the teenager compensation based
on
the offence's lack of physical contact.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged its ruling to grant the payout
hinged
on the interpretation of the controversial Criminal Offence Victims
Act.
Court of Appeal president Justice Margaret McMurdo and Justice Anthe
Philippides said: "There are divergent views amongst learned judges
of
the District Court as to whether an offence .... (that) does not
involve personal contact is a 'personal offence'.''
There have been contrasting judgments handed down by various judges
depending on their views of the law.
On November 20, 2003, the then 13-year-old boy was sitting on a park
bench with the 46-year-old man - who was a friend of the boy's mother
- near Sandgate Beach, north of Brisbane, when the offence occurred.
The man said he would pay $100 if he could perform oral sex on the
teenager but was refused.
The man then took the boy home without any coercion or physical
contact but the teenager became upset and suffered mental shock.
The man later pleaded guilty to unlawfully attempting to procure a
child to commit an indecent act.
The victim's application for compensation was dismissed by District
Court Judge Charles Brabazon.
"In a case where the charge is an attempt to procure, there will be
no
personal contact,'' Judge Brabazon said.
However, the Court of Appeal found otherwise, with Justices McMurdo
and Philippides ordering the man pay the victim $7500 compensation.
The justices found the judge erred in law when he found the incident
was not "an indictable offence committed against the person of
someone''.
The justices said had the proposition been carried out, it would
"unquestionably have involved the child's person or body''.
Justices McMurdo and Philippides also said the fact the victim knew
the man had a criminal history for offences against other boys and
had
served a lengthy sentence for attempted murder "may well have made
the
offence particularly frightening''.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
