Ryall Banned

[midfielder]

FFC

Agree but as some one posted earlier 18 is a big difference to 45.. The age gap can be anywhere from 4 to 6 years i.e. 13 years 11 months & 18 years 1 day, or 13 years 1 day & 18 years and 11 months.

I can recall when I was but a boy of 16, I went out with a girl and it got near dark, her Mum came & got her and in a nice way told she had just turned 11... she told me she was 15 ... she looked and acted 15 to me (BTW nothing happened her Mum was to smart)

If guilty throw the book as hard as you can .. but this is a very serious offense IMO it has been well handled today by the FFA so let the legal system do it's work.

 

[Jesus]

What is it about "a person under age is an offence" dont people get?

Consensual cannot be a factor because she was under the age where the Law says she is able to give adult consent.

That is only a bit accurate. It isnt about consent. It is about a reasonable assumption that she is of age. If it was rewasonable, say she was mature, looked 16, and said she was 16, then you have reasonable chance of getting off.

Hell i did my rsa the other day and they showed photos, some looked 30 and were 16, some looked 14 and were 26.

It is case by case. If it was a reasonable assumption it is a reasonable assumption and not a crime.

This only matters if he did not know she was a minor

If he knew she was underage, then it doesnt matter if he was 16 and she was 15, he broke the law.

 

[FFC Mariner]

If they can prove he was sexually intimate - he is gone. doesnt matter if she had fake ID or just lied.

The Police are very wary about cases like this so to bring charges, you would have to think they are pretty certain

 

[Redline]

I'm glad to see that the FFA have stepped up to the plate however, regardless of whatever else, and not done a Manly, and let him play, or a Cronulla and just hid it under the carpet

 

[FFC Mariner]

They hid it under the carpet from 23rd April and I'd bet that MV knew for a while too

 

[Jesus]

If they can prove he was sexually intimate - he is gone. doesnt matter if she had fake ID or just lied.

The Police are very wary about cases like this so to bring charges, you would have to think they are pretty certain

I think you will find that is no longer the case. But it could well be.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

If they can prove he was sexually intimate - he is gone. doesnt matter if she had fake ID or just lied.

It does matter, and rightly so. (well, so my Yr 12 legal studies experience tells me )

Personally, I'm not a supporter of public allegations of sex offences - if he didn't do it, then his life is stuffed (though not as much as a regular joe...)

If he is guilty, then let's hope the FFA ban him from life as a deterrent to anybody else.  Last thing we want is to be like the NRL who are perfectly happy to let criminals play...

 

[Sym]

Musta been one hawt 13 year old...

lucky it wasn't a league player..the forum would be booming

 

[clarence]

I don't know where the law stands about deception on the part of the 'victim' to attract Ryall to her.

But if she is dirty about Ryall not continuing the relationship or felt she'd been abused or whatever, she will turn up wearing braces & ponytails, no makeup and he'll be stuffed.

If they did have a full on relationship rather than a fling, I do hope he has some nice couple shots of them showing how old she really looked at the time.

A lot of guys make this sort of mistake but usually it's only a couple of years younger than them, not 5. A guy who was a bit more experienced might have picked up the difference between the girl and other women he may have biblically known.

The worrying thing is that the case may be more about a girl pretending to be a woman & if convicted he'll be no better than the real paedophiles on record.

Unfortunately, because of the age of the victim involved, little details will be made known unless the court deems it necessary.

 

[FFC Mariner]

(I stand to be corrected here) I think that the Crown is required to prove that she was 13 and sexual contact took place.

At that point, he is ipso facto guilty and mitigating circumstances would apply to sentencing and not to guilt or innocence.

 

[Auburn Mariner]

Yes, but Actus Reus and Mens Rea apply. They have to prove:

1. That was of sound mind and deliberately committed the offence
2. That he physically committed the act.

Point 2 is usually cut-and-dried, it is Point 1 that can be very hard in order to gain a guilty verdict as charged.

 

[dibo]

i'm not a lawyer, but i know that there are certain 'strict liability' offences, where if you've done it you're done - the prosecution merely needs to prove you committed the act, not that you knew you were committing it and intended to. they don't have to prove that you knew and intended to commit the offence. 'i didn't know' or 'i didn't mean to' are irrelevant.

among them are speeding and drink driving, i'd be surprised (given the nature of the offence, and the responsibility that rests on the actor) if sex with a minor was not also a strict liability offence.

 

[~Floss~]

I find it very hard to believe that there is absolutely no consideration for "reasonableness".

HYPOTHETICALLY (nothing to do with the specifics of Ryall's circumstances, just imagine):
- 18-19 y.o. male at a pub/club (licenced premises)
- Gets cracked-onto by what in all reasonableness appears to be an attractive girl aged anywhere between 17 & 20, all dolled-up
- During the night's conversation she mentions she is 18, and after all, she is in a licenced premises
- They leave together and the inevitable happens
- Girl's parents hear rumours, interrogate her and find out what happened, go straight to the cops because she is actually 15 & 11mths with a fake ID.

Apparently the dude's life is stuffed as far as career and educational opportunities, where he can live and what activities he can be involved with... if he survives being in jail as a known paedophile. The only consideration would be a relatively "light" jail sentence?

The security and bar staff at the pub, who were also fooled just as much, probably wouldn't even get a fine.

 

[FFC Mariner]

I am not sure you can "reasonably" shag a child of 13?

 

[Honkee]

I agree with floss, BUT, DAMN, if you cant see the difference between a 17 year old and a 13 year old .you are completely useless.

Stupid bastard deserves everything he gets.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

According to Wikipedia, Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK) is a strict liability offence:

Rape of a child under 13
(1)
A person commits an offence if
(a)
he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and
(b)
the other person is under 13.
(2)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Is he being charged with rape or one of the other sexual offences?

From that, I can gather that for somebody between 13-16, the law would allow for the 'victim' to lie about her age, thus considering that a mitigating circumstance, but it looks like they've drawn the line where that can happen at 13.

Considering that kids are hitting puberty earlier and earlier, and 'club clothes' are increasingly being marketed to kids, I do believe that a 13 year old could pass for 16, and it's possible that Ryall could be the victim here.

Without seeing photos of her on the night, nobody can really argue if he was an idiot, or if he was had - but that's a bit of a moral argument that it looks like isn't allowed by the law anyway.  So if it is rape he's charged with, he's f*****.  If it's another offence, then I don't know.

As I said, the law quoted is an English law, so while I'm too lazy to look up comparative Aussie law, I figured I may as well put that in.

 

[Honkee]

Capn,

I respectfully disagree.

Sure Kids may be hitting puberty earlier these days, but once again, the whole "she looked older" defence just doesnt float when its a 13 year old. I have yet to see a 13 year old that can pass for 17 or older (please note: I have 5 nieces, 4 of who are around the ages in question)

And the club clothes thing I again have to respectfully disagree. Sure Girls may be wearing more adult clothing these days, but they look just like that, "little girls wearing adult clothes"

Dont get me wrong, if we see a pic of this girl (which we wont) and she looks 17 then I will be the first person to say I was wrong. But I maintain I have not yet seen a 13 year old that can convincingly pass for 17

 

[Bex]

i'm not a lawyer, but i know that there are certain 'strict liability' offences, where if you've done it you're done - the prosecution merely needs to prove you committed the act, not that you knew you were committing it and intended to. they don't have to prove that you knew and intended to commit the offence. 'i didn't know' or 'i didn't mean to' are irrelevant.

among them are speeding and drink driving, i'd be surprised (given the nature of the offence, and the responsibility that rests on the actor) if sex with a minor was not also a strict liability offence.

You're talking about "statute law". In statute law, you've got to prove you're innocent rather than innocence being presumed. You're correct in saying speeding is part of statute law. So are the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Sex with a minor is not a part of statute law as far as I can recall.

 

[dibo]

Well, if we must (and thanks to Austlii this is really easy, even for us non-lawyers[/url]):

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 66C

66C Sexual intercourse-child between 10 and 16

    (1) Child between 10 and 14 Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years is liable to imprisonment for 16 years.

    (2) Child between 10 and 14-aggravated offence Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years in circumstances of aggravation is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.

    (3) Child between 14 and 16 Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

    (4) Child between 14 and 16-aggravated offence Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years in circumstances of aggravation is liable to imprisonment for 12 years.

    (5) In this section, "circumstances of aggravation" means circumstances in which:

        (a) at the time of, or immediately before or after, the commission of the offence, the alleged offender intentionally or recklessly inflicts actual bodily harm on the alleged victim or any other person who is present or nearby, or

        (b) at the time of, or immediately before or after, the commission of the offence, the alleged offender threatens to inflict actual bodily harm on the alleged victim or any other person who is present or nearby by means of an offensive weapon or instrument, or

        (c) the alleged offender is in the company of another person or persons, or

        (d) the alleged victim is (whether generally or at the time of the commission of the offence) under the authority of the alleged offender, or

        (e) the alleged victim has a serious physical disability, or

        (f) the alleged victim has a cognitive impairment, or

        (g) the alleged offender took advantage of the alleged victim being under the influence of alcohol or a drug in order to commit the offence, or

        (h) the alleged offender deprives the alleged victim of his or her liberty for a period before or after the commission of the offence.

See Part 1, unless Part 2 applies because of Part 5 (g).

Sexual intercourse is defined as follows:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 61H

61H Definition of sexual intercourse and other terms

    (1) For the purposes of this Division, "sexual intercourse" means:

        (a) sexual connection occasioned by the penetration to any extent of the genitalia (including a surgically constructed vagina) of a female person or the anus of any person by:

            (i) any part of the body of another person, or

            (ii) any object manipulated by another person,

        except where the penetration is carried out for proper medical purposes, or

        (b) sexual connection occasioned by the introduction of any part of the penis of a person into the mouth of another person, or

        (c) cunnilingus, or

        (d) the continuation of sexual intercourse as defined in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

    (1A) For the purposes of this Division, a person has a "cognitive impairment" if the person has:

        (a) an intellectual disability, or

        (b) a developmental disorder (including an autistic spectrum disorder), or

        (c) a neurological disorder, or

        (d) dementia, or

        (e) a severe mental illness, or

        (f) a brain injury,

    that results in the person requiring supervision or social habilitation in connection with daily life activities.

    (2) For the purposes of this Division, a person is under the authority of another person if the person is in the care, or under the supervision or authority, of the other person.

    (3) For the purposes of this Act, a person who incites another person to an act of indecency, as referred to in section 61N or 61O, is taken to commit an offence on the other person.

As you can see from reading the two in conjunction, an accused person need not have 'raped' the child. The person merely needs to have committed any of the pretty basic set of sexual acts - as the child is under 16 the question of consent is irrelevant, it's simply an offence. If it's not sexual intercourse and is instead an act of indecency, it's a bit lighter:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 61N

61N Act of indecency

    (1) Any person who commits an act of indecency with or towards a person under the age of 16 years, or incites a person under that age to an act of indecency with or towards that or another person, is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

    (2) Any person who commits an act of indecency with or towards a person of the age of 16 years or above, or incites a person of the age of 16 years or above to an act of indecency with or towards that or another person, is liable to imprisonment for 18 months.

See Part 1.

You'd have to look at case law to know how the proof etc. goes though - the text doesn't really give a clear indication of the burdens of proof here and there. There's certainly nothing in the law that suggests that the person has to know that the person is under 16 though.

Need a lawyer for an expert view I'm afraid.

i'm not a lawyer, but i know that there are certain 'strict liability' offences, where if you've done it you're done - the prosecution merely needs to prove you committed the act, not that you knew you were committing it and intended to. they don't have to prove that you knew and intended to commit the offence. 'i didn't know' or 'i didn't mean to' are irrelevant.

among them are speeding and drink driving, i'd be surprised (given the nature of the offence, and the responsibility that rests on the actor) if sex with a minor was not also a strict liability offence.

You're talking about "statute law". In statute law, you've got to prove you're innocent rather than innocence being presumed. You're correct in saying speeding is part of statute law. So are the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Sex with a minor is not a part of statute law as far as I can recall.

Statute is simply an Act, rather than case law (precedent). Murder is codified in statute too, but the prosecution must still prove mens rea.

 

[~Floss~]

I am not sure you can "reasonably" shag a child of 13?

I agree with floss, BUT, DAMN, if you cant see the difference between a 17 year old and a 13 year old .you are completely useless.

I agree.
Ryall's case appears to be completely different to the hypothetical I raised. An 18 y.o. pursuing a barely-16-y.o. is almost fathomable, especially in particular areas just up the F3.

But 13...WTF !!!