Re: Legality of Pete's research

["John Hughes" <pureneasy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lela,

welcome back to the show that never ends ;-)

In response to your query,

> > Presumably Pete is saying that about the UK law (or its interpretation)
> > changing since 1999 because he has been told this by legal counsel.
I'm
> > not impressed by the legal expert the Observer quotes, because anyone
who is
> > working in this field has a vested interest in being politically
correct.
> >
> > If anyone here is still writing letters about this, it might be
interesting
> > to inquire further into this issue of charging people retroactively.  It
> > definitely would be a miscarriage of justice if Pete carried out his
> > research after being assured it was legal, and then was arrested after
the
> > law changed.

I'm afraid I answered this point on one of the lists a while ago.

Pete wasn't "caught" by a retrospective law - his offences were committed
under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and he was placed on the sex
offenders' register which was brought into law under the Sex Offenders' Act
1997 which became effective on 1st September 1997.

This is an extract from A British Court of Appeal judgement in a rape case -
please note the final line;

"An allegation of rape of a girl under 16 which took place outside the
jurisdiction and before the coming into force of the Sex Offenders Act 1997
was non-justiciable in the jurisdiction. Moreover, great care would be
required in determining whether evidence of such an allegation should be
admitted as similar fact or background evidence as to other counts against a
defendant.

The Court of Appeal so held in allowing the appeal of the defendant, R,
against convictions for a number of sexual offences including one count of
rape of a girl under sixteen. The rape was said to have occurred in a
country outside the jurisdiction and at a time before the coming into force
of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 on 1 September 1997 (that Act being without
retrospective effect). "

If it helps Pete to believe he was caught under a retrospective law then
fine, but the simple facts are that he wasn't.

John