News De Goey Charged With Indecent Assault

[sr36]

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.

I still think you're jumping at shadows. If you read the lengthier version in the Web link that Jen posted (note, this is legal advice and not the actual law). The point about slight touching is simply pointing out that the touching doesn't have to be forceful or aggressive to constitute indecent assault. Later points state that it has to be sexual.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I still think you're jumping at shadows. If you read the lengthier version in the Web link that Jen posted (note, this is legal advice and not the actual law). The point about slight touching is simply pointing out that the touching doesn't have to be forceful or aggressive to constitute indecent assault. Later points state that it has to be sexual.

The offence which used to be known as indecent assault in Victoria was replaced with an offence known as sexual assault in 2015. This offence, which is governed by Section 40 of the Crimes Act, is defined slightly differently to how indecent assault was defined, however both offences comprise non-consensual sexual touching which falls short of sexual penetration.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I still think you're jumping at shadows. If you read the lengthier version in the Web link that Jen posted (note, this is legal advice and not the actual law). The point about slight touching is simply pointing out that the touching doesn't have to be forceful or aggressive to constitute indecent assault. Later points state that it has to be sexual.

The bolded is exactly my gripe, I read the linked version and it states basically this and it just re affirms my view. If you read that link again it doesn't not clarify the where in the first line. It just states 'excludes the course of everyday life' - therefore this allows for charging someone with assault if it's a brush on the arm. At least that's the impression I get from it.

In what universe should touching someone in a non aggressive manner (not in an inappropriate area of course) allow recourse to charge someone with indecent assault?

 

[sr36]

The bolded is exactly my gripe, I read the linked version and it states basically this and it just re affirms my view. If you read that link again it doesn't not clarify the where in the first line. It just states 'excludes the course of everyday life' - therefore this allows for charging someone with assault if it's a brush on the arm. At least that's the impression I get from it.

In what universe should touching someone in a non aggressive manner (not in an inappropriate area of course) allow recourse to charge someone with indecent assault?

You're simply misreading it. The dot point your concerned about isn't a stand alone point, it's part of a law against non consensual sexual contact. It just means you can't say, "It wasn't assault, I only lightly touched her/his genitals" I daresay it's a point that is in there because other non sexual forms of assault require force.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If the accused touches the complainant’s body or uses his/her body to touch the complainant in a way which clearly gives rise to a sexual connotation, this is sufficient to establish that the assault was indecent.

The problem with this is how one views what is sexual connotation, could be a touch on the shoulder. Lawyers could also argue this til the cows come home on the grounds of technicalities. What's 'clear' to one will be not clear to another, too much room for argument.

Without going down a rabbit hole, on the exact definition, it is not explained clearly in that link. The original dot points that Jen pasted from it gives the impression that just merely touching someone could constitute a charge - doesn't clarify the where in the first dot point.

IF you could be charged by merely touching someone on the shoulder then that would be ridiculous IMV.

 

[Good_Old]

Because it doesnt. It doesnt. How many times can I say it? You are wrong. Utterly, deeply wrong. Wronger than wrong. The wrongest person who has ever been wrong in a history of the human race which contains an awful lot of wrong. That kind of wrong. And you keep doubling down. You are an example of why this board is totally unsurvivable, because it generally consists of a bunch of people just banging on with the same wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over


*inhales*


over and over and over and over and over and...


You are wrong. Fractally, heroically wrong.

Outside of this topic of conversation, is everything okay?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because it doesnt. It doesnt. How many times can I say it? You are wrong. Utterly, deeply wrong. Wronger than wrong. The wrongest person who has ever been wrong in a history of the human race which contains an awful lot of wrong. That kind of wrong. And you keep doubling down. You are an example of why this board is totally unsurvivable, because it generally consists of a bunch of people just banging on with the same wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over


*inhales*


over and over and over and over and over and...


You are wrong. Fractally, heroically wrong.

You might right, fantastically right, righter than right. The rightest horse who has ever been right in the history of the equine race right.

Apologies for misinterpreting and to sr36 , but the original dot points pasted by Jen does not clearly explain the 'where' in the first dot point. Even in the link.

It immediately gives the impression of an absurd law by 'merely touching regardless how minimal'.

Doesn't make me any less ...........wr...........wro................... you know the word.

Don't worry Horse the board will survive, even with me in it. Of course you could charge me with misinterpretation and sue me as well but I'm not worth the cost of hiring a farrier.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Which is why there is an ample body of case law on what constitute a sexual connotation, and I repeat, that merely touching someone on the shoulder does not qualify.

The only way the link gives that impression is not reading the whole of the article and understanding the crime has several elements, all of which must be proved, and a body of caselaw around what words may be interpreted to mean.

It is also why the crime was changed to the crime of Sexual assault in Victoria, with intent to clarify by changing the language overtly to including an element requiring the touching to be sexual, in line with NSW. IN practice, the same kinds of conduct as were previously in Vic "Indecent" have been deemed as sexual.

1/ I did state IF

2/ Ok guilty of not reading the whole article, never the less the immediate impression for the very first dot point did jump out at me. Maybe my bad for jumping the shark but we're not in a court of law and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in easily misinterpreting just by reading those dot points.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You're simply misreading it. The dot point your concerned about isn't a stand alone point, it's part of a law against non consensual sexual contact. It just means you can't say, "It wasn't assault, I only lightly touched her/his genitals" I daresay it's a point that is in there because other non sexual forms of assault require force.

Agree and would argue could be easily misread. My bad.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I don't understand why you all find it necessary to discuss the case at all. You could save yourselves a lot of angst by simply allowing the law to take its natural course and determine innocence or guilt at some future date. As long as De Goey is allowed to continue playing for Collingwood, I see no reason to speculate on what he has done or what constitutes indecent or sexual or whatever kind of assault. If the situation changes and the AFL deems it necessary to suspend him from playing, then by all means expend your mental and emotional energy fighting the ban. In the meantime, why beat yourselves up over a charge of which the specific details have not even been released.

 

[Ulahoopski]

Quotes a NSW court for a Victorian criminal matter

You're welcome. Feel free to fill us all in on the different interpretation in Vic Mr. Helpful.

 

[sr36]

I don't understand why you all find it necessary to discuss the case at all. You could save yourselves a lot of angst by simply allowing the law to take its natural course and determine innocence or guilt at some future date. As long as De Goey is allowed to continue playing for Collingwood, I see no reason to speculate on what he has done or what constitutes indecent or sexual or whatever kind of assault. If the situation changes and the AFL deems it necessary to suspend him from playing, then by all means expend your mental and emotional energy fighting the ban. In the meantime, why beat yourselves up over a charge of which the specific details have not even been released.

I actually learnt things from this discussion. And it was great to have Good Horse debunk the anything can be considered sexual assault these days myth. But agree in regards to discussion regarding JDGs case itself.

 

[JB1975]

I actually learnt things from this discussion. And it was great to have Good Horse debunk the anything can be considered sexual assault these days myth. But agree in regards to discussion regarding JDGs case itself.

FFS. We're not here to learn.

The name of the game is grandstanding, insult, aspersion, innuendo, platitudes, or tirades. A combination of all these things is enlightenment, and learning is no part of it.

Learning is proscribed.

 

[sr36]

FFS. We're not here to learn.

The name of the game is grandstanding, insult, aspersion, innuendo, platitudes, or tirades. A combination of all these things is enlightenment, and learning is no part of it.

Learning is proscribed.

Damn it. I broke the rule. Understanding your last sentence is further proof that I'm recalcitrant.

 

[Jen2310]

Sorry, I didn't realize it was NSW law. I'll have to pay more attention next time.

 

[TKiL]

I'm not sure but there appears to be some misconceptions floating about this thread, so I will attempt to clarify.

Firstly some preliminary

1) The linked article is from New South Wales. And relates to the statute in NSW, though it does contain some learnings for Victoria, but needs to be understood as not necesatrily the same as for us.

2) Even for the NSW statute, an important part of the discussion from that link which is helpful is as following in describing what is required to prove the offence;



2. The Assault Was Indecent
The Crown (Police) must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assault was indecent. For an assault to be “indecent” it must have a sexual connotation.

The word “indecent” means contrary to the ordinary standards of respectable people in the community.

If the accused touches the complainant’s body or uses his/her body to touch the complainant in a way which clearly gives rise to a sexual connotation, this is sufficient to establish that the assault was indecent.

For example, touching the genitals or anus of a male or the genitals or breast of a female.

However, if the assault does not carry a clear sexual connotation, the Crown must show that the accused’s conduct was accompanied by an intention to obtain sexual gratification. That is, the conduct went hand in hand with the intention to obtain sexual gratification.

In deciding whether the Crown has proved this element, all the surrounding circumstances including the accused’ words and/or actions, the respective ages of the accused and the complainant, any relationship which may have existed between them and the nature of the act relied upon, is all taken into consideration.

THe bit people are fixating on needs to be read in context of the above.

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.

So yes, a slight touch can qualify. But it needs to meet the test of indecent. I am not sure someone gently touching my john thomas with a finger should be exempt to be frank. Or my foster mother's breasts. But if you differ, please direct me to any of your relatives you are happy for me to touch slightly in circumstances where the test of indecent is met.

These factors are similar to the law applied in Vic under the old Indecent Assault law.


Under the NSW statute (and the Victorian as it stood, and under a similar formulation but replacing sexual for indecent because we are less Victorian about calling a spade a spade, but the conduct is the same, remains in the crime of Sexual Assault) The touching must be indecent. IN Vic, as in NSW, the generally accepted areas of touch that meet the definition are the same, genitals, breasts, anus. Anywhere else, you need to present additional evidence of the indecent nature of the contact, eg the groin rubbing above, touching an inner thigh and sliding up towards the groin.

There are several elements required to prove the crime. Only one of which is the touch itself, which categorically cannot be some incidental contact to anywhere. Under the Vic statute the touching was only one of five elements, and importantly, intent, lack of consent, and mens rea all are part of it.

So

You cannot be guilty of Indecent Assault for just touching someone on the shoulder.

You cannot be guilty of Indecent Assault if the touch was unintentional

You can potentially be guilty (if the other elements are met) if you touch intentionally the anus, genitals, or breasts

You can potentially be guilty if you touch somewhere else with the intent of sexual gratification but in practice those circumstances are generally things like groin rubbing or touching inner thigh towards the groin.

Next misconception, Indecent Assault is not "better" than Sexual Assault. The crime of Sexual Assault replaced the crime of Indecent Assault in Victoria after a law review in 2014. It is not intended to be worse or better in conduct, it replaces the previous one and the intent was to clarify. IN terms of the kinds of conduct covered, basically the same.

Now for the rant.

The idea that incidental touching anywhere is somehow able to be pursued unreasonably as indecent assault is wrong, deliberately misleading fanciful bullshit, and I am sick and ******* tired of reading wrong, deliberately misleading bullshit on this topic. I can cope in other areas, it insults my brain but I think, meh, what the fu**. But the trope that somehow our criminal law on sexual based offences is somehow egregiously open to misuse by pearl clutching I dont know whats who just want to get people through overly liberal criminal laws is bullshit. If anything the opposite is the case, it is really rare for prosecution to proceed compared to the number of cases that could, and rarer to obtain convictions not because complainants are making it up, but because its really hard to meet the evidentiary standard of beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances where its is often oath against oath.
So can we stop with the bollocks?

None of which goes to the question of whether JDG did or did not do anything, but I am struck by the number of people who have lost their collective minds for some reason in here and seem to have become crusaders for tearing down the framework which is designed to protect victims of sexual based offences which is flimsy enough at the best of times rather than get their heads around the fact that one of our players may or may not have done something bad, and for all we know hasnt anyway, which the process will in its time demonstrate.

sound post - now close the thread

 

[Go Woods]

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

Correct, the number of FWts on FB making comments about JDG....I had to hold my nerve and stop myself from getting involved...

 

[soreplums]

I don’t mean to make light if it, but the case of Peter Filandier v Chad Davis would have been an interesting case.

Indecent assault or assault?

 

[Pistol Night]

I don’t mean to make light if it, but the case of Peter Filandier v Chad Davis would have been an interesting case.

Indecent assault or assault?

Apt username for the inquiry!

 

[Proud New Father of 3]

I just assumed this case was investigated by the AFL in 2018 after what De Goey did to Richmond in the prelim?

 

[rand corp]

Quotes a NSW court for a Victorian criminal matter

The only thing good about N.S.W. is that it stops Queenslanders from mating with Victorians

 

[JB1975]

The only thing good about N.S.W. is that it stops Queenslanders from mating with Victorians

Oh my yes, please keep those bronzed, bikini-clad Meter Maids from the Gold Coast away from me...

 

[jackcass]

Oh my yes, please keep those bronzed, bikini-clad Meter Maids from the Gold Coast away from me...

He's coming.....

 

[JB1975]

View attachment 908234

He's coming.....

Wizzzzzzzerrr!

Gee, he'd definitely lighten the mood in my neck of the woods...

 

[jackcass]

Wizzzzzzzerrr!

Gee, he'd definitely lighten the mood in my neck of the woods...

He's probably worried he'd get stopped at the border but as soon as he opened his mouth they'd throw him across just to get him out of NSW.