News De Goey Charged With Indecent Assault

[sr36]

Right. New evidence. I'm just really suspicous of what new evidence could there be from an incident outside a pub 5 years ago? Something nobody picked up in 2018. The police investigated then and there was nothing.

Doesn’t have to be new evidence. It could be as simple as someone reviewing old cases and asking "Why weren't these guys charged?"

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Doesn’t have to be new evidence. It could be as simple as someone reviewing old cases and asking "Why weren't these guys charged?"

I thought you said you didn't know anything about legal stuff?!

 

[Jen2310]

Doesn’t have to be new evidence. It could be as simple as someone reviewing old cases and asking "Why weren't these guys charged?"

Yeah, I suppose that could be it.

 

[sr36]

I thought you said you didn't know anything about legal stuff?!

I don't, but as it's not stopping anyone else, so I thought I'd join in. I have no idea if that scenario I suggested is remotely plausible, but it seems more plausible than him being charged with the cops having no hope of getting a conviction.

Just as an aside, not connected to JDG. Does that USA double jeopardy exist in Australia, where you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I don't, but as it's not stopping anyone else, so I thought I'd join in. I have no idea if that scenario I suggested is remotely plausible, but it seems more plausible than him being charged with the cops having no hope of getting a conviction.

Just as an aside, not connected to JDG. Does that USA double jeopardy exist in Australia, where you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

I googled it: ' But most states and territories in Australia have in recent times changed the laws that prevent double jeopardy, to allow someone to be tried twice for an offence in exceptional circumstances.Aug 10, 2018'

 

[Jen2310]

Also, lets not forget he has to appear in court in Sept over last years driving offences. Busy few months he has ahead of him lol

 

[jackcass]

I googled it: ' But most states and territories in Australia have in recent times changed the laws that prevent double jeopardy, to allow someone to be tried twice for an offence in exceptional circumstances.Aug 10, 2018'

From memory, they can be re-tried if new evidence is unearthed but I think it only applies to certain offences.

 

[Ulahoopski]

May not be an updated breif. May not be new evidence. May simply be that a different investigator or prosecutor read the file and decided that charges should be laid.

Clarkson whining again probably.

 

[Ulahoopski]

The term "indecent" when applied to assault is so ridiculously subjective that a guilty/not guilty verdict would come down to the particular thoughts of those on the jury (or the judge if it's not a jury "trial").

From the NSW Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book:

"The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assault was indecent. The word “indecent” means contrary to the ordinary standards of respectable people in this community. It is for you to determine the standards prevailing in our community when deciding whether the Crown has satisfied you beyond reasonable doubt that the act alleged in this case was indecent"

Doesn't get much greyer than that. Lotto time.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What Actions Might Constitute An “Indecent Assault”?

• The slightest touch / physical contact (however minimal) is sufficient to amount to an assault. This excludes touching in the course of ordinary everyday life.

Soz for the late reply, but if this is true it is utterly ridiculous! Of the highest order!

Of course this allows avenue for any vengeful person to charge someone they don't like with indecent assault, as the last sentence could be construed very differently depending on one's view of everyday life.

I can give other examples of corporate policy which is just as absurd, the company I work for have these sorts of HR policies. One of the middle managers was taken to HR after being accused of leering, it did not go any further and there was a first and final warning but I mean fair dinkum it should never have gotten that far.

Just goes to show what a f*d up virtue signalling world we live in, sh1t like this makes my blood boil. It's just so petty! Makes my blood boil.

 

[Kappa]

Soz for the late reply, but if this is true it is utterly ridiculous! Of the highest order!

Of course this allows avenue for any vengeful person to charge someone they don't like with indecent assault, as the last sentence could be construed very differently depending on one's view of everyday life.

I can give other examples of corporate policy which is just as absurd, the company I work for have these sorts of HR policies. One of the middle managers was taken to HR after being accused of leering, it did not go any further and there was a first and final warning but I mean fair dinkum it should never have gotten that far.

Just goes to show what a f*d up virtue signalling world we live in, sh1t like this makes my blood boil. It's just so petty! Makes my blood boil.

It has to be written that way, otherwise "lightly" touching someones ass wouldn't be assault because the force would be too low.

A vengeful person making up a claim will have virtually zero evidence to get a conviction, and will just spend many thousands of dollars and many days fruitlessly pursuing a legal challenge.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It has to be written that way, otherwise "lightly" touching someones ass wouldn't be assault because the force would be too low.

A vengeful person making up a claim will have virtually zero evidence to get a conviction, and will just spend many thousands of dollars and many days fruitlessly pursuing a legal challenge.

Shouldn't be allowed that avenue in the first place and it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

What should constitute decent assault to anyone with sound mind, are things like physical intent to harm or physical intent to touch inappropriate areas without clear consent.

Not this 'however minimal' touching bullsh1t ffs! That is stuff that children argue about and not something that should written as law - you can't make this stuff! f*n absurd!

 

[Carringbush2010]

With all due respect, I don’t agree.

And that's why your views and opinions are viewed as hysterical and or inconsistent sometimes by other posters.

 

[sr36]

Of course this allows avenue for any vengeful person to charge someone they don't like with indecent assault, as the last sentence could be construed very differently depending on one's view of everyday life.

It might allow avenue for any vengeful person to accuse, but only the police can do the charging and I'm pretty confident that they're not charging peopling for accusations of lightly touching a shoulder.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It might allow avenue for any vengeful person to accuse, but only the police can do the charging and I'm pretty confident that they're not charging peopling for accusations of lightly touching a shoulder.

Not the point, shouldn't be able to get to this position in the first place. It reeks of petulance and is reactionary to have this written in law.

 

[sr36]

Not the point, shouldn't be able to get to this position in the first place. It reeks of petulance and is reactionary to have this written in law.

I think you need to read it again - in conjunction with the other points. It's just saying that if you intentionally touch someone's sexual organs, or touch someone with your sexual organs - without consent. It doesn't matter how lightly you do it. You can be charged with indecent assault. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[jathanas]

Shouldn't be allowed that avenue in the first place and it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

What should constitute decent assault to anyone with sound mind, are things like physical intent to harm or physical intent to touch inappropriate areas without clear consent.

Not this 'however minimal' touching bullsh1t ffs! That is stuff that children argue about and not something that should written as law - you can't make this stuff! f*n absurd!

Again I'll remind posters that victims of assault might be reading these posts.

Please post with empathy and trust in the court's interpretation of the law with regards to the JDG case.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think you need to read it again - in conjunction with the other points. It's just saying that if you intentionally touch someone's sexual organs, or touch someone with your sexual organs - without consent. It doesn't matter how lightly you do it. You can be charged with indecent assault. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I think you need to read Jens post again, it clearly states if you touch someone regardless of where or regardless of how minimal, that constitutes indecent assault rather than sexual assault.

Indecent Assault – the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that you touched the complainant as alleged; that the touching was intentional; that the touching occurred in indecent circumstances; that there was no lawful justification for the touching, such as consent; and that you were aware they were not consenting or might not be consenting, or that you did not give any thought to whether the complainant was consenting.

Sexual Assault – the prosecution must prove that you intentionally touched the complainant as alleged; that the touching was sexual; that the complainant did not consent to the touching; and that you did not reasonably believe that the complainant consented to being touched.


What Actions Might Constitute An “Indecent Assault”?

• The slightest touch / physical contact (however minimal) is sufficient to amount to an assault. This excludes touching in the course of ordinary everyday life.
• The intentional touching, even over clothes, of breasts, anus, vagina or penis.
• A kiss, when it has been made clear the kiss is unwanted.
• Intentionally rubbing your groin against another, example; on a busy train when the other person has not given consent.

What The Police Must Prove
The essential elements that the Crown (Police) has to prove are:

1. that the accusedassaulted the complainant, and
2. that the assault was indecent, and
3. that the assault was without the consent of the complainant, and
4. that the accused knew that the complainant was not consenting, or he/she realised that there was a possibility that the complainant was not consenting but he/she went ahead anyway, or he/she did not even think about whether the complainant was consenting or not — in other words, he/she did not care whether the complainant was consenting.

 

[Seedsfan]

The term "indecent" when applied to assault is so ridiculously subjective that a guilty/not guilty verdict would come down to the particular thoughts of those on the jury (or the judge if it's not a jury "trial").

From the NSW Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book:

"The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assault was indecent. The word “indecent” means contrary to the ordinary standards of respectable people in this community. It is for you to determine the standards prevailing in our community when deciding whether the Crown has satisfied you beyond reasonable doubt that the act alleged in this case was indecent"

Doesn't get much greyer than that. Lotto time.

Quotes a NSW court for a Victorian criminal matter

 

[Carringbush2010]

Again I'll remind posters that victims of assault might be reading these posts.

Please post with empathy and trust in the court's interpretation of the law with regards to the JDG case.

With all due respect Jathanas, I'm posting the ridiculous interpretation. It could mean brushing someone on the arm - if someone has been brushed on the arm and by extension is offended by my view then we may as well shut down all and any form of communication. Take our bat and ball and go home, that is how absurd this is.

I have total empathy for those who have been assaulted in a harmful and or inappropriate manner (what any sound minded person would view as an offensive form of assault). That is a universe away from what I'm discussing.

 

[domus]

It has to be written that way, otherwise "lightly" touching someones ass wouldn't be assault because the force would be too low.

A vengeful person making up a claim will have virtually zero evidence to get a conviction, and will just spend many thousands of dollars and many days fruitlessly pursuing a legal challenge.

And destroying someone's reputation regardless of the outcome. Most people don't read beyond the headlines.

 

[Jen2310]

I think you need to read Jens post again, it clearly states if you touch someone regardless of where or regardless of how minimal, that constitutes indecent assault rather than sexual assault.

Here's a link to the source of this info

Indecent Assault - Armstrong Legal Canberra

The conduct that used to constitute the elements of indecent assault (the previous Section 76 of the Crimes Act) is now captured by a suite of other charges.

www.armstronglegal.com.au

 

[jathanas]

With all due respect Jathanas, I'm posting the ridiculous interpretation. It could mean brushing someone on the arm - if someone has been brushed on the arm and by extension is offended by my view then we may as well shut down all and any form of communication. Take our bat and ball and go home, that is how absurd this is.

I have total empathy for those who have been assaulted in a harmful and or inappropriate manner (what any sound minded person would view as an offensive form of assault). That is a universe away from what I'm discussing.

No problem and thank you for making the effort to explain your position in a courteous and polite manner.

We're not sure about the specifics of the JDG incident and we're now discussing the possibility that the current laws might lead to charges thrown for trivial reasons that would fail the pub test.

That might discount how menacing a a finger run down the back of someone's neck can be but putting that aside, is that for us to decide here and now?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Here's a link to the source of this info

Indecent Assault - Armstrong Legal Canberra

The conduct that used to constitute the elements of indecent assault (the previous Section 76 of the Crimes Act) is now captured by a suite of other charges.

www.armstronglegal.com.au

Thanks Jen

 

[Carringbush2010]

No problem and thank you for making the effort to explain your position in a courteous and polite manner.

We're not sure about the specifics of the JDG incident and we're now discussing the possibility that the current laws might lead to charges thrown for trivial reasons that would fail the pub test.

That might discount how menacing a a finger run down the back of someone's neck can be but putting that aside, is that for us to decide here and now?

Thanks mate for understanding, again an intentional run of a finger down the back of someones neck that is not consented compared to brushing someone on the arm is not the same.

The difference being one is obviously transparent as to what the intent is where as a friendly brush on the forearm may be construed by the 'victim' as a sinister motive even when it may not be.

If one can be convicted of brushing someone on the arm then we may as well stay in lock down forever, not for covid but the pettiness of such a thing. Laws this absurd should not exist in the first place.

In saying that I'm not even considering the Goeys position because that would be speculating, just venting about how ludicrous the reality of law is (if indeed true).

Apologies if not thread relevant.