Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

omnomnom said:
Excellent...so?
Click to expand...

I know that if you committed certain offences as a UK citizen abroad then you can be convicted under UK laws but I am unsure if this extends to the alleged victims of the crimes if it happens in the UK

Example:

The accuser in this case was a 17 year old Florida resident where age of consent is 18.

Alleged crime happens in the UK with an AoC of 16.

Can it be classed as underage (no other factors involved like I go onto below) ?

I understand that she alleges trafficking which may mean Florida AoC stands but I don't know this. If so, would there need to be sufficient evidence to support trafficking before any conviction of underage sex is available?

Although its a civil case, Is it clear what the specific charges are?
 
Richie said:
I know that if you committed certain offences as a UK citizen abroad then you can be convicted under UK laws but I am unsure if this extends to the alleged victims of the crimes if it happens in the UK

Example:

The accuser in this case was a 17 year old Florida resident where age of consent is 18.

Alleged crime happens in the UK with an AoC of 16.

Can it be classed as underage (no other factors involved like I go onto below) ?

I understand that she alleges trafficking which may mean Florida AoC stands but I don't know this. If so, would there need to be sufficient evidence to support trafficking before any conviction of underage sex is available?

Although its a civil case, Is it clear what the specific charges are?
Click to expand...

You have to abide by the law in the country / state youre in...You cant argue "Well its 16 in my country". Its a non starter surely.
 
omnomnom said:
You have to abide by the law in the country / state youre in...You cant argue "Well its 16 in my country". Its a non starter surely.
Click to expand...

I agree you can't argue that...

The alleged offences took place in the UK, New York and Little St James where the ages of consent are 16, 17 and 18 respectively.

As she is reported to have been at least 17 in all cases, was she legally underage?

In the 3rd case on Little St James, she stated she was around 18 years of age:

In evidence to a Florida court in 2015, Roberts Giuffre wrote: “The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands.

“I was around 18 at the time."
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/07/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-what-you-need-to-know

If that's the case then there was no underage sex unless trafficking can be proven I would have thought.
 
omnomnom said:
You have to abide by the law in the country / state youre in...You cant argue "Well its 16 in my country". Its a non starter surely.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it’s a bit like a U.S. citizen being stopped for something in U.K., and on being searched found to be carrying a hand gun, then protesting that he had a legally held Nevada gun permit.
 
Trig said:
Yes, at least 17, still means under 18 that's the age of consent in certain states..

Maybe Epstein and his mates should have gone to Mexico, that would have solved the problem right?
Click to expand...

Yes, in certain states.

I'm not condoning what happened but the locations and times of the alleged incidents would put her above the ages of consent in those respective locations:

UK - AoC is 16
New York - AoC is 17
Little St James - AoC is 18 (accuser stated she was "around 18" at the time).

If she was trafficked then the AoC of her home state may come into play which is 18 and so the underage/minor element is correct.
 
omnomnom said:
What has UK law got to do with it if it didn’t happen in the UK?
Click to expand...

One of the alleged incidents did happen in the UK so, on that one, it is relevant.

As I mentioned a few posts up - She wasn't legally underage when the incidents happened at their respective times in their respective locations.

That doesn't take away from the trafficking aspect as stand alone offences however.
 
plasmahal said:
Refer to posts 233 and 234 as they are relevant.
Click to expand...
I suspect someone has not read the facts of the case or the thread, the annoying thing is while he may not be guilty if these specific offences his behaviour and association with Epstein and his chums is clearly offensive there needs to be some sort of offence of bringing the British crown into disrepute so he can be suitably felt with assuming he broke no other laws which I’m yet to be convinced he didn’t.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I suspect someone has not read the facts of the case or the thread, the annoying thing is while he may not be guilty if these specific offences his behaviour and association with Epstein and his chums is clearly offensive there needs to be some sort of offence of bringing the British crown into disrepute so he can be suitably felt with assuming he broke no other laws which I’m yet to be convinced he didn’t.
Click to expand...

Bringing the crown into disrepute?? Gee, did you never get taught English history? The guy's an absolute saint compared to some pre PC members of our royal family :)
 
The crime is non-consensual sex, commonly called rape. Her age will factoring into the damages.

If it was not a crime in the area it was committed in then that adds to the crime of trafficking her if what was done to her was a crime where she was taken from.
 
Dalandius said:
The crime is non-consensual sex, commonly called rape. Her age will factoring into the damages.

If it was not a crime in the area it was committed in then that adds to the crime of trafficking her if what was done to her was a crime where she was taken from.
Click to expand...

The crime is rape. Rape is one form of non consensual sex. Someone who has penetrative sex without the others consent is a rapist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don’t change the language. It doesn’t help the victims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom