Equitist wrote on Dec 28
th, 2010 at 8:56pm:
Forget the actions of the troubled teenage girl - it is time to shift the focus of this case back onto the conduct of the professional adult male role models (and their supporters) in relation to her...
Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 28
th, 2010 at 10:14am:
The Missing Link
[...]
...In one of last week’s blogs I said of a St. Kilda player ‘Why hasn’t he been charged at least with unlawful carnal knowledge or sexual penetration of a child?’
As several people pointed out on Twitter: I was wrong. The current law in Victoria puts the age of consent at 16. In the past it was 16 if the partner was under 18 -- and 18 if the partner was over 21.
So how come a policeman has been charged with sexual penetration of a child and using his position to procure sex with a child? Because he was in a position of authority. Duty of care comes into play.
That second bit is a zinger for the St. Kilda footballers if it were proven that they did meet the 16-year-old at the footy clinic and phone numbers were exchanged.
A good lawyer could prove they were in a position of authority at that school visit if rendezvous plans were made.
Section 48 of the Victorian Crimes Act raises the age of consent to 18 where the child is under the care, supervision or authority of the adult with whom they had sexual intercourse.
S. 48 (1) A person must not take part in an act of sexual penetration with a 16 or 17 year old child to whom he or she is not married and who is under his or her care, supervision or authority.
Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).
This is why it is imperative for the St Kilda players’ defence that they first met the girl weeks later after the game in Sydney.
The Sunday Age yesterday had a story about ‘Saints teen: track star who took a wrong turn’.
That story says that after the high school clinic she went to Sydney for an athletics event and after the Saints-Swans match waited outside the change rooms.
‘They didn’t even question my age from the start because they recognised me from the school clinic’.
Hang on. The AFL says they didn’t meet at the clinic.
[...]
If these professionals, who were employed in a position of trust and authority over minors, did exchange phone numbers at the school football clinic and/or remember her from that day, then they may not only be in breach of contract but also guilty of child protection violations and/or the crime of carnal knowledge...
Who ever wrote that originally forgot to include part of S.48, which gives a guide to what "under the care, supervision or authority of the adult" means, and who/what adults it includes:
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), and without limiting that subsection,
a child is under the care, supervision or authority of a person if the person
is-
(a) the child's teacher;
(b) the child's foster parent;
(c) the child's legal guardian;
(d) a minister of religion with pastoral responsibility for the child;
(e) the child's employer;
(f) the child's youth worker;
(g) the child's sports coach;
(h) the child's counsellor;
(i) the child's health professional;
(j) a member of the police force acting in the course of his or her duty
in respect of the child;
(k) employed in, or providing services in, a remand centre, youth
residential centre, youth justice centre or prison and is acting in
the course of his or her duty in respect of the child."
Any of those sound like "Sports person in Hotel room" to you???
And before you say it, the coaching clinic was run by a coach, with the players there to demostrate and be seen, and once the clinic ended, so did any 'authority or care' provisions...
Forum
Pages: 
Immature vengeful St Kilda teen in court (Read 236174 times)
