Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 01:00
Dutch suspect cleared of grooming ‘teenager’
"Netherlands court says appeal failed because ‘boy’ was an undercover officer
‘Grooming’ became a criminal offence in the Netherlands in January 2010
A court of appeal in the Netherlands has cleared a 38-year-old suspected paedophile [sic] of grooming a 13-year-old boy for sex – because the “teenager” who agreed over the internet to meet him was in fact an undercover police officer.
Legal commentators said last night that the decision – which confirms the ruling of a lower court – could bring to an end the use of adult “decoys” in paedophilia [sic] investigations because it establishes that they effectively undermine the legal basis of any prosecution.
“Grooming” became a criminal offence in the Netherlands in January 2010 after it changed its legislation to ratify the Treaty of Lanzarote, which criminalises the use of “new technologies”, particularly the internet, to sexually abuse or harm children."
"Under Article 248e of the Dutch Criminal Code, a suspect may be prosecuted for grooming – which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence – once he or she makes a proposal over the internet to meet a child under 16 for sex.
However, in yesterday’s ruling the judges in The Hague said that the accused could not be convicted of grooming a child for sex because, in actual fact, he had made an appointment to meet a grown man and not a child – and it was not an offence to proposition any person over 16 for sex."
""Making an appointment for sex with someone over the age of 16 is never an offence, even if the suspect thinks he is dealing with a juvenile,” the court said in its published ruling. “In this sense, the suspect’s intentions are not decisive here.”"
"They said it followed that for the crime of grooming to take place within the meaning of the law it was “necessary” that the intended victim should be under 16 – a crucial decision for future police investigations."
What does Jim think?
Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE
"If you become frustrated about some of our judges in #onlinegrooming cases, be thankful we are not in the Netherlands http://goo.gl/3LY13"
Of course he would.
08:00 Wednesday 26 June 2013
'My life is not worth living'
"‘MY life has been a complete nightmare, it has been ruined,’
DM says he has contemplated killing himself after friendships and family relations crumbled and received death threats, when he was arrested on suspicion of sexual grooming following the posting of a video on social networking site Facebook.
The 41-year-old now speaks exclusively to the Mail on how his life has been turned upside down after the video went viral."
"He now lives out of the area, frightened to return, and says very few people speak to him anymore, but wants to put across his side of the story claiming his social networking sites were hacked and he believed he was meeting up with an 18-year-old.
“I was on a website called Badoo for over 18s. It is not an explicit site or anything of that nature.
“An 18-year-old girl looking for guys over 28, messaged me saying hello and I replied hello. The next message I got was a mobile asking to text so it moved to text message. She later asked me to meet, I said I didn’t want to but she was saying I had no intention of meeting. I had no intention of having a relationship.”
In the video, Mr M is told he was talking to a 14-year-old girl but denies he knew she was 14 and believes his internet profiles had been hacked. In the video, he says he knew she was 14 and had simply gone to meet her to advise her against meeting people she didn’t know online.
He said: “I was confronted by three men, two were quite stocky with tattoos and it was very dark so I couldn’t see them clearly. I was shown a message on a tablet that implied I was chatting to a minor and made me look as guilty as hell, I would have said the Pope was yellow with pink spots to get away unharmed.
“Their cars had blocked me in on a very rough estate. I was scared and feared for my wellbeing."
Internet 'sting' that destroyed my life
Published: October 11th, 2013
Indiana Court of Appeals Rules in RC’s Favor
"The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the case to decide whether or not C took a substantial step in attempting child seduction as charged. The court found that C did not take a substantial step in committing attempted child seduction. Because his requests to engage in sexual behavior were Internet-based and did not require an immediate act, the court concluded that C’s Internet-based solicitations did not constitute a substantial step toward the crime of child seduction.
The Appellate Court reversed the Starke Circuit Court’s decision to dismiss the charges."