interestrateripoff Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-27-acquitted-of-raping-13yearold-girl-in-sweden-because-she-looked-welldeveloped-10111432.html A man has been acquitted of raping a 13-year-old girl in Sweden because she looked “well-developed”. The victim said she met her alleged attacker, who has not been named, in a park near Stockholm after she ran away from her foster home last year. The girl had no money, no mobile phone or place to stay when she got talking to the 27-year-old man and he invited her to his house nearby “for a drink”, Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet reported. .. He was charged with statutory rape, which applies to any adult having sex with children under the age of 15 in Swedish law. But both Västmanland District Court and the Svea Court of Appeal have now thrown out the charges because the legislation also states that a defendant must “know” or have “reasonable grounds to believe” that the child is under age. After viewing video evidence including the teenager’s police interviews, judges in both cases decided that she had a “well-developed body” and carried herself in a way that did not reflect her age, the Expressen newspaper reported. The suspect could therefore not have known that she was under the legal age and was innocent, they ruled. Impossible for anyone to judge on this as clearly they aren't going to provide pictures of the girl in question, but can you really tell on video evidence on what someone looks like, I presume they mean CCTV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I remember a case in the UK, around 1970, of a 17 year old accused of underage sex with a 12 year old (on the edge of 13). They'd met in a nightclub. At his trial, the jury found him guilty, but the judge gave him a suspended sentence. The young lady had turned up to court in the dress she wore that night, in defiance of the prosecution, and the judge took the view that the lad couldn't have reasonably known she was under 16. He'd be probably doing a hard twenty in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I remember a case in the UK, around 1970, of a 17 year old accused of underage sex with a 12 year old (on the edge of 13). They'd met in a nightclub. At his trial, the jury found him guilty, but the judge gave him a suspended sentence. The young lady had turned up to court in the dress she wore that night, in defiance of the prosecution, and the judge took the view that the lad couldn't have reasonably known she was under 16. He'd be probably doing a hard twenty in this day and age. You are exactly right (in that he'd be doing time). The Sexual Offences Act 2003 made sex with a child 13 or under a strict liability offense, meaning that it didn't matter what your intent was or how old you genuinely thought the partner was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie_George Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Seems hairy muff to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Why alleged "attacker" ? Admittedly at only a very cursory glance, it looks like the reason they brought the case was because it was technical/statutory rape as opposed to unconcensual rape. Presumably the reason they let him off was because they decided on balance the girl was happy with the arrangement and the guy simply didn't know her age. In which case no kind of attack of any description took place at all. So why report it as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.