Psamathe wrote:And if one starts classing her as a victim presumably there must be evidence of her being groomed (until now I've not seen suggestions that there is such evidence but I may easily have missed it ...).
There's a discussion in the Trump thread about what we mean by evidence. But in this case everyone's "missed" it because we only know that a Government Minister made an order and the press has run lots of stories.
The whole point of why this would be better handled in court is that she'd have a chance to actually present the evidence.
I suspect a lot depends on the details of the timeline re what she was doing when. (My understanding, which may be wrong so do correct it) is that she worked as an ISIL enforcer and had something of a reputation being particularly strict (and her role meant she carried weaponry). So I'd suspect a lot would depend on what age she was when still carrying out such a role and what the mitigation aspects might be from earlier actions as a child (e.g. (alleged ?) grooming). From a perspective of laws she may have broken as everything was over the age of 10 I'd assume same laws apply as for an adult. But if (some) of those (alleged) offences were carried out under the age of 18 would the "under 18" procedures and sentences apply or would everything now be tried as an adult (as she is now over the age of 18)?
I assume the grooming aspect is relevant to the trial and possible sentencing (if found guilty) for offences.
I suspect a lot depends on the details of the timeline re what she was doing when. (My understanding, which may be wrong so do correct it) is that she worked as an ISIL enforcer and had something of a reputation being particularly strict (and her role meant she carried weaponry). So I'd suspect a lot would depend on what age she was when still carrying out such a role and what the mitigation aspects might be from earlier actions as a child (e.g. (alleged ?) grooming). From a perspective of laws she may have broken as everything was over the age of 10 I'd assume same laws apply as for an adult. But if (some) of those (alleged) offences were carried out under the age of 18 would the "under 18" procedures and sentences apply or would everything now be tried as an adult (as she is now over the age of 18)?
I assume the grooming aspect is relevant to the trial and possible sentencing (if found guilty) for offences.
Ian
There's also the dimension of (she alleges) coercion to act in that way once there, I think.
I suspect a lot depends on the details of the timeline re what she was doing when. (My understanding, which may be wrong so do correct it) is that she worked as an ISIL enforcer and had something of a reputation being particularly strict (and her role meant she carried weaponry). So I'd suspect a lot would depend on what age she was when still carrying out such a role and what the mitigation aspects might be from earlier actions as a child (e.g. (alleged ?) grooming). From a perspective of laws she may have broken as everything was over the age of 10 I'd assume same laws apply as for an adult. But if (some) of those (alleged) offences were carried out under the age of 18 would the "under 18" procedures and sentences apply or would everything now be tried as an adult (as she is now over the age of 18)?
I assume the grooming aspect is relevant to the trial and possible sentencing (if found guilty) for offences.
Ian
There's also the dimension of (she alleges) coercion to act in that way once there, I think.
And I suppose any court case would require some witnesses to testify and given the struggle she's having getting back to the UK I wonder what the availability of witnesses will be like.
Psamathe wrote:But if (some) of those (alleged) offences were carried out under the age of 18 would the "under 18" procedures and sentences apply or would everything now be tried as an adult (as she is now over the age of 18)?
thirdcrank wrote:Perhaps it's more cleverly disguised than I thought.
One of my instincts is to look for motive.
Now, when I first read about this case, one of the notable features of the Supreme Court judgments was the unanimity of the justices and, on reflection, that will have been notable to plenty of other people. So, anybody seeking to rubbish it has to deal with that and what better way than to imply it was contrived?
He has implied no such thing and nor has he questioned the justices' integrity:
The first impression comes from the decision being unanimous.
This is not a judgment where some justices with a more liberal perspective have their say and their more conservative counterparts say something else.
A basis for a judgment was found to which all supreme court justices who heard the case was content to put their names.
This is similar to what happened in the second Miller case – on the prorogation of parliament – and on the Heathrow expansion case.
Perhaps it is a mere coincidence – but the supreme court is at now at least in the habit of putting on a united front in cases that (can be said to) involve issues of high policy and the public interest – even if it is not a deliberate policy.
This is no doubt sensible – if the judicial element of the state is to check and balance another element of the state (or to not check or balance another element of the state) then it is better for it not to be seen as something on which senior judges disagree between themselves.
It also perhaps indicates that there is more going on behind the scenes in seeking to obtain unanimous judgments, rather than a laissez-faire attitude of just publishing what each judge thinks.
It is the substance of the arguments and the points he makes that matters, and it needs to be considered on its own merits.
Psamathe wrote:But if (some) of those (alleged) offences were carried out under the age of 18 would the "under 18" procedures and sentences apply or would everything now be tried as an adult (as she is now over the age of 18)?
So in effect she is an adult and will be tried as an adult. Comments made about her being a child are not relevant from a legal perspective as she was over 10 when any (alleged) offences would have been committed and she is now over 18. (But again I claim no expertise).
Psamathe wrote:So in effect she is an adult and will be tried as an adult. Comments made about her being a child are not relevant from a legal perspective as she was over 10 when any (alleged) offences would have been committed and she is now over 18. (But again I claim no expertise)
Being above the age of criminal responsibility does not mean that the actions of the accused are treated in the same way as they would be if they had been made by an adult. It does not mean that those comments are not relevant. It means that the individual can be criminally responsible.
Psamathe wrote:So in effect she is an adult and will be tried as an adult. Comments made about her being a child are not relevant from a legal perspective as she was over 10 when any (alleged) offences would have been committed and she is now over 18. (But again I claim no expertise)
Being above the age of criminal responsibility does not mean that the actions of the accused are treated in the same way as they would be if they had been made by an adult. It does not mean that those comments are not relevant. It means that the individual can be criminally responsible.
Jdsk wrote:Are you confusing being "above the age of criminal responsibility" with being an adult? Under the law of England? In some other sense?
Jonathan
I'd hoped to avoid that (though maybe didn't clearly enough) by putting in things like "...will be tried as an adult" and "...out such a role and what the mitigation aspects might be from earlier actions as a child (e.g. (alleged ?) grooming). From a perspective of laws she may have broken as everything was over the age of 10 I'd assume same laws apply as for an adult" i.e. thinking about the different categories used by the courts to determine if criminal law applies and what trial/sentencing is applicable. I used the term adult to contrast those posts about her being a child in the context of allegedly committing criminal offences.
AIUI, the three defendants were all juveniles at the time of the alleged offences - when incidentally it was an irrebuttable presumption that a male under 14 was incapable of sexual penetration - so at least one charge which might nowadays have been rape was limited to indecent assault, based on the law at the time of the alleged offence. The alleged offences were said to have been committed so long ago that two of the defendants were declared "unfit to plead" which I assume was related to some form of dementia.
The trial venue is the adult court and there's no suggestion that it should be the juvenile court.