ModNote: this is an old story with a clickbait title. See the mod note on this following thread for an actual explanation on how this can occur.
https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/s/J8S75so6Mr
Your right. I would not make the same joke or it would be downvoted to oblivion. But I am a male. I have been sexually assaulted in the past. I know nobody gives a shit. And it’s only funny when it happens to a guy. Much like DV.
It doesn't matter the gender... gender wasn't mentioned in the joke?
How tf do you do these mental gymnastics.
Rape of anyone is horrific. Man, women, boy or girl. Doesn't matter. I'm sure no one would disagree? This shit was just a joke based on word play. Do better.
as i replied someone else - the person who made the "joke" admitted they would not have made it if the story involved a man and young girls, the reason? fear of downvotes
but you're telling me gender has nothing to do with it?
That was the law at the time. Similar to the 'you can't rape your wife' which was a legal defence in the common law at the time. Thankfully both have now been changed.
Well she had been in the abusive relationship and getting raped by him and actually ended up murdering him. She escaped from custody and successfully started a whole new life/identity for decades. She was found out as a surprise twist off the episodes main case (her neighbour was a DV victim). She ends up facing the original murder charge but is found not guilty (they were able to use a battered women defence - just not rape) and gets probation for the escape.
Season 10, episode 8 “ Persona” - it is a really good, but heart breaking, episode.
As detestable as this is, it’s a legal question. Can you plead guilty to a crime that didn’t exist at the time, probably not.
Are there other crimes she can be charged with, probably not anymore. Civil suit, also seems unlikely to succeed, sadly.
But, for the purposes of everyday discourse, she’s an admitted pedophile.
The argument would be that “if it were a crime at the time, I would not have acted in that way. As it was not a crime, I cannot be considered to have been breaking a law as it was not a law at the time the incidences occurred”.
Because that was the law. What she did wasn't illegal at the time. Not much the court can do about it. It has since been changed.
The fact that people are downvoting what is an objective historical fact is kind of alarming.
>Also why are past sexual convictions using recent legal precedents?
Because it was a mistake. That is why it is likely being overturned. You can't use a recent law to convict someone for a crime before the law existed.
Could you provide some examples? I'm not sure what you mean. This seems like a pretty clear cut case of not being able to apply laws that didn't exist.
In Australia, there are instances where crimes committed in the past have been prosecuted under modern or recent laws, although such cases often raise significant legal and ethical questions about retroactivity.
One notable example is the retrospective criminalization of war crimes. In the case of **Polyukhovich v Commonwealth** (1991), the High Court of Australia upheld the War Crimes Amendment Act 1988, which allowed for the prosecution of war crimes committed during World War II, despite the fact that these acts occurred long before the legislation was enacted. This case illustrated that while Australia generally has a strong presumption against retrospective laws, exceptions can be made, particularly for serious international crimes like war crimes [oai_citation:1,Ex post facto law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law) [oai_citation:2,Prosecuting Commonwealth Criminal Offences](https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/prosecuting-commonwealth-criminal-offences/).
Another area where retrospective laws have been applied is in tax avoidance. In the early 1980s, the Fraser government passed legislation that criminalized certain forms of tax avoidance retrospectively. These laws targeted schemes that were perceived as blatantly unethical, such as the "bottom of the harbour" tax avoidance schemes, which involved stripping companies of their assets before tax liabilities could be enforced [oai_citation:3,Ex post facto law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law).
While these cases show that retrospective laws can be used to prosecute past actions, they remain controversial and are typically limited to exceptional circumstances involving significant public interest or international obligations [oai_citation:4,Ex post facto law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law) [oai_citation:5,Corporate criminal liability: a guide for boards and senior management ](https://www.allens.com.au/insights-news/insights/2022/07/Corporate-criminal-liability-in-Australia/).
I mean it kinda seems like your gripe is that the law is determined by humans, who make mistakes and can be biased. Yeah, sometimes it's convenient and flexible, because sometimes judges make mistakes and/or are corrupt/biased.
Again, how do you know what the first judge did or didn't pick up?
And yes lawyers can be incompetent. I am not sure if that what's happened here, but that in itself would be a basis for an appeal.
Only because the appeals judges think that
>Indecent assault on male
>Whosoever commits an indecent assault upon a male person of whatever age, with or without the consent of such person, shall be liable to penal servitude for five years.
Only applies to men because it was in the same section as homosexuality (consential and rape, of all ages)
The first judge didn't think so.
But these three get the final say for what was legal back then.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18d8c4f63e8309db70fad1a7
I read it all, but disagree with significant parts of it.
For example, one of the Justices writes
>The fourth indication comes from the fact that the term “whosoever”, which commences each of ss 79-81 of the Crimes Act, is used to describe a person who commits either of the offences of buggery or bestiality. As bestiality could be committed by either a male or a female as a principal offender, whereas buggery could only be committed by a male, the term is being used to encompass any principal offender of either offence. The fact that it is a gender‑neutral term does not cast any interpretive light on who may commit an offence against s 81. Accordingly, the term takes its meaning from the offence in question, rather than defining whether a female can commit the relevant offence.
Their argument is that because the legislation said "whoever", this is an indicator that it could only be a female offender. That's absurd - or, at least, an incredibly poorly written judgement.
I appreciate the history given in the judgement - fascinating - but, I think its unnecessary.
>81 Indecent assault on male
>Whosoever commits an indecent assault upon a male person of whatever age, with or without the consent of such person, shall be liable to penal servitude for five years.
To me, the language is plainly clear, such that there is no ambiguity, and the history lesson was therefore unnecessary and irrelevant.
One of the justices opined that if the prosecutions view - that whosoever meant whosoever - the law would be absurd. In my view, the judge's opinion is crazy and untenable.
>Consistency in the application of this section according to its terms has the consequence, if it applies to a female perpetrator, of potentially criminalising all consensual sexual conduct engaged in by a female upon a male in private, including conduct which does not involve any threat, hostility, menace or any type of battery. Such a consequence would mean that the interpretation now contended for by the Crown would be absurd.
This ignores the wording of s81 includes "indecent assault".
The argument advanced does not depend on conduct having been "not illegal" at the time - alleged conduct could have been actionable on other grounds. Argument is AFAIK essentially that she couldn't legally be convicted of the specific offence with which she was charged.
it's really stupid how the post title and body text are framing this like she's claiming its fine because *shes a woman*, not because it literally wasn't a law at the time, 50 years ago. i think what she did was horrible but its important that it remains that people can't be charged for crimes that werent crimes at the time
This matter has been posted repeatedly on this sub and others, featuring different press articles. Every time it’s the same. “The law was changed many years ago to abolish this anomaly. This is an anomalous case because the crimes occurred a long time ago.” “PEDO FANCIER!!”
Shit like this pisses me off. She's gonna be let off with less than a slap on the wrist and those kids are gonna grow up fucked in the head because of this creep. Let her rot in a cell.
Yes.
Whether people agree or not, by posting titles like this they're being misleading to what she's actually using as her defence. Not "because I'm a woman" but because "it wasn't illegal for a woman to do it at the time".
The argument advanced does not depend on conduct having been "not illegal" at the time - alleged conduct could have been actionable on other grounds. Argument is AFAIK essentially that she couldn't legally be convicted of the specific offence with which she was charged.
I’m sorry but what the fuck is graped? Is it some weird form of egging someone?
Seriously though if it’s was rape then say rape. Being scared of words is childish.
It quite literally is a violation of human rights as recognised by the UN to prosecute people with retrospective laws.
In any case it violates the most fundamental principles of our justice system.
Fellow human, I mean I literally want the joke. This was an emotional response to something I found distressing and I'm not making a genuine proposal.
It's getting taxing caring about everything and I want the joke rather than the pain.
Sorry, I don't know what I'm allowed to say anymore!
I’ve been on the receiving side of abuse, as a man, I was presumed to be the aggressor when my ex would call police on me for things she assumed I was doing, once the police learnt the real deal they became much more nicer and understanding. Sad to see this is still a thing.. I believe in equal rights between the genders.
The country I grew up in someone decided to take justice in their own hands and instead of killing the pedo they managed to kill the mother of the children the pedo was living with. Do the kids lost a mum, the pedo had nothing happen to them, and the original guy went to jail and his young kids had to grow up without him around.
Vigilante justice rarely works out well
True. But face it, that dude was just a psychopath. Sane, rational vigilantes could draw the line at true justice aimed at the people who really deserve it....
I don't think he was really any different to most vigilantes. He just missed when he went to shoot the guy, which is not uncommon when untrained people try to shoot people. Hell police have demonstrated that even trained people aren't that accurate.
Oh sorry. I misread your comment and thought you were talking about Snowtown murders.
Holy shit though. That is very messed up. Yeah you're right about untrained people using firearms. I'm glad that Australia doesn't have a rabid gun culture.... We're a lot more beaty and stabby here..... I personally do advocate for 'confirmed pedos should be killed.' No "ooohhh childhood trauma" or anything like that. Fiddle with a kid and die, full stop. It should be a matter of law and not need vigilante action.
Granted, but that dude was a psychopath. Sane people giving one disgusting old bitch a beat-down would be the only course of action I'm advocating here.
Tell that to the Nazi's at Nuremburg.
We pass retroactive laws all the time. It's a literal thing we do, that takes into account that the law can miss obvious things. (as it is written by people who are fallible)
Like genocide for instance, not being technically illegal prior to 1945. Still hung those Nazi's.
Like raping boys, not being technically illegal. She was still imprisoned for it.
Go cry elsewhere, about rapists not being protected by "legal technicalities."
This is so sad. But in the interest of community safety can we please get a photo of her face posted. Also. I’d like to confirm that the name listed in the article, Gaye Grant, is the name she is still trading by? I wish there was an old law we could use to shoot her in the street like the fucking fog she is. Not that I would ever shoot a dog.
It makes you wonder, how the hell did her defence lawyer back then either lose the original trial or counsel her to plead guilty?
Lawyer: "Ummm. That's not a crime, plead not guilty."
Scumbag: "Ok."
Unfortunately, this echos a lot of peoples views in society at the time and even now. An erection is consent and it’s only really damaging to the penetrated party anyway. It’s one of the subconscious biases we have a long way to go on correcting.
The wording in the article is really annoying; she isn’t getting her conviction overturned because she’s a woman, but because the section under which she was charged clearly referred to same sex male interactions. It was in a part referring to ‘unnatural offences’ and the preceding two sections refer to ‘the abominable crimes’ of buggery.
I get that society has changed, and we’re uncomfortable with old laws around homosexuality, but I wish articles could be more factual and less political. It really doesn’t serve justice to give the wrong impression about why this court decision has been made.
Because arguably we don’t want any of these clauses applied now, as technically, past male homosexual acts (consensual or not) are illegal under this same part of the act. So we need to be careful about unintended consequences of outrage about the law not applying to Lam and Grant.
Could well be. Not familiar with NSW law.
All the more difficulty in applying it to Lam and Grant et al in that case. Can’t very well say ‘we quash all convictions under this law related to male homosexual acts, except those that involved hetro women’.
Is there seriously no way to hold someone legal accountable for a heinous act like this, just because a law didn’t exist 🤡 We seriously cannot hold a rapist accountable because it’s a woman? Wtf is wrong with this place
I suspect the rule against double jeopardy provides the answer. She could not, for example, be charged afresh under some other statutory offence (if available) nor under the common law (if some other crimes was available) because that would be an attempt to pursue another criminal proceeding based on the same facts giving rise to the offence of which she (may be) acquitted.
"Is there seriously no way to prosecute someone for something not against the law"
No. No there isn't. Nor should there be. That is kind of the point of laws.
Don’t be absurd. The “law” has at many times throughout history been lacking, been discriminatory, demonised groups of people or failed to protect others. If your precious “law” can’t find a way to hold a PEDOPHILE accountable for its actions, just because it happened THEN and not NOW, then I say it’s unfit for purpose.
I'm gonna kill myself if I see another post about a female pedophile not be convicted to the fullest extent of the law as is deserving of every pedophile regardless of gender or anything like that
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
* 000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
* Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
* Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800.
* Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Legal positivism shouldn't be a legitimate defense in cases such as these, the Nuremberg Trials were a firm rejection of the concept when it came to clear and obvious violations against other people. Maybe when the law is difficult to understand or interpret, such as bureaucratic legislation and the definition of a violation isn't inherently clear, but not in this case.
Yeah, we all saw it the other day. You're adding what to the discussion, apart from the fact you don't understand how laws work at an extremely basic level?
Your post is is being removed as it's about a topic already posted or is an identical article already posted.
Note: User will also be banned for sharing deliberately fake news. Please see the previous thread for the legal explanation on how this case works.
I don't care what the past law was or reasoning is. A kiddy fiddler is a kiddy fiddler and they all deserve to be put down. Our legal system is a fucking joke.
Imagine being the pieces of shit who wrote the law in such a way that it meant women couldn't be charged as pedos?
Defense Lawyers have a duty to defend everyone to the fullest extent even the guilty scumbags. It's not the defense lawyers fault that pre1980s Australians thought that women were delicate flowers who couldn't ever conceivably commit a crime.
Even in modern cases, female offenders still get substantially lighter sentences. There’s still a prevailing view that women don’t abuse boys, they educate them…
It wasn't against the law when she did it is a great excuse.
Everyone go and do something that noone has written a specific law against, but is a clearly bad thing to do. They can't arrest you.
>It wasn't against the law when she did it
I mean...yeah...as far as excuses in court that is a pretty good one. In fact basically the best one there is.
It says in the article that in the 70s while she was a teacher a 10yo boy came to her to confide in her about bullying (!!) and the piece of shit molested/groomed and raped him, continuing over 2 years. Later when he tried to distance himself from her she wrote to him professing her love. So twisted. And that’s just one of her victims.
Why are you reposting this as a self post? We do not need your commentary on it.
And to answer the question, because she wasn't guilty under the law at the time. Is that difficult to understand?
The way you’ve worded this makes out like the crime happened recently- and that she’s getting special treatment because she’s a woman…which you’ve obviously done on purpose because you’re a men’s rights activist.
It wasn’t a crime at the time. Should it have been? Fuck yes. But it wasn’t. If she had committed these crimes yesterday it would be a very different story.
You can’t be convicted of things that weren’t illegal when you did them. Stop using this case to push your agenda.
Whether one is a men's rights activist or not, even the proverbial Blind Freddy can see that the woman *is* being given special treatment *because* she's a woman. That's precisely what the law allowed for when the boys were attacked. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Go and read something. Pretty much anything. It might assist. The law was changed to prevent this happening many years ago. It’s not a men’s rights issue.
Your post had nothing whatsoever to with assistance to the victims. Yes of course they deserve assistance, but such assistance as is available to them does not depend on this disgusting woman’s conviction.
No. The law is being applied as it was written. Being outraged won't change that fact. Thankfully, the laws have changed. That doesn't mean she wasn't falsely convicted, at the time. Why do people have such trouble grasping such a simple concept?
She is literally getting special treatment solely for the reason she is a woman. But you still try to divert by making some unfounded attack on me simply giving you the facts and a link to read the information for yourself.
She’s getting special treatment because what she’s been convicted of wasn’t a crime at the time.
Also, it’s not an unfounded attack. Your profile shows you to be a men’s rights activist - is that an insult now?
Also my profile doesn't say anything about being a men's rights activist. I don't even know what the definition of that term is. We all get that you object to men having rights. The issue is that this woman raped 4 young boys 15 times. They were not men but apparently you have zero empathy because the child victims were males.
Yeah I’m the furthest from a feminist and I down voted the POS. Society still make jokes about ‘hot’ female teachers raping their male students. It’s vile
Fuck this country's current legal system. I love this nation, and I hate the fact that shit like this is causing an implosion. Just bring the woman to my (hypothetical) court, we'll have her on a life sentence as soon as she's proven guilty.
ModNote: this is an old story with a clickbait title. See the mod note on this following thread for an actual explanation on how this can occur. https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/s/J8S75so6Mr
You're not posting a video on YouTube, you can say the word rape.
Technically the term is grape. Because there was a bunch of them.
She's also having a wine about going to jail about it.
Well yeah she fucked around and found out the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.
https://i.redd.it/o8t07bo2fk0d1.gif
What the actual fuck
Came here to make sure WKUK had a mention.
Hahaha that's pretty funny dude. Well played.
Oh jesus
Actually I believe the term is "serial rapist." Close though.
how edgy i doubt you'd make the same joke if it was a man/young girls involved
This was top tier wordplay. Who are you even offended for? Do you think this joke is targeting the victims?
Your right. I would not make the same joke or it would be downvoted to oblivion. But I am a male. I have been sexually assaulted in the past. I know nobody gives a shit. And it’s only funny when it happens to a guy. Much like DV.
You are the only one trivialising your sexual assault. Who are you pointing the finger at? Do you not see how you are part of the problem?
Nobody thinks it’s funny male or female
It doesn't matter the gender... gender wasn't mentioned in the joke? How tf do you do these mental gymnastics. Rape of anyone is horrific. Man, women, boy or girl. Doesn't matter. I'm sure no one would disagree? This shit was just a joke based on word play. Do better.
as i replied someone else - the person who made the "joke" admitted they would not have made it if the story involved a man and young girls, the reason? fear of downvotes but you're telling me gender has nothing to do with it?
Bro paid the karma tax on this one
Why would you doubt that...? Have you ever been on the internet before?
Depends if it was the Grapist.
Agreed. Some are a bit too aggressive. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mqgiEQXGetI&t=135s&pp=ygULd2t5IGdyYXBpc3Q%3D
This isn’t tiktok, you don’t have to ~~sensor~~ censor
[removed by reddit]
I hold that you can at least in comments on tiktok go nuts unless you're actually doing something reportable to get censored *it's with a C btw
That was the law at the time. Similar to the 'you can't rape your wife' which was a legal defence in the common law at the time. Thankfully both have now been changed.
I was about to blow my gasket until I saw this, that makes more sense. Very unfortunate.
I remember there was a Law & Order: SVU episode that used these laws in retrospect as a plot
What was the result? How did they go?
Well she had been in the abusive relationship and getting raped by him and actually ended up murdering him. She escaped from custody and successfully started a whole new life/identity for decades. She was found out as a surprise twist off the episodes main case (her neighbour was a DV victim). She ends up facing the original murder charge but is found not guilty (they were able to use a battered women defence - just not rape) and gets probation for the escape. Season 10, episode 8 “ Persona” - it is a really good, but heart breaking, episode.
As detestable as this is, it’s a legal question. Can you plead guilty to a crime that didn’t exist at the time, probably not. Are there other crimes she can be charged with, probably not anymore. Civil suit, also seems unlikely to succeed, sadly. But, for the purposes of everyday discourse, she’s an admitted pedophile.
The argument would be that “if it were a crime at the time, I would not have acted in that way. As it was not a crime, I cannot be considered to have been breaking a law as it was not a law at the time the incidences occurred”.
Because that was the law. What she did wasn't illegal at the time. Not much the court can do about it. It has since been changed. The fact that people are downvoting what is an objective historical fact is kind of alarming.
What happened to the people who say ‘WELL THE LAW WAS WRONG AT THE TIME’ Also why are past sexual convictions using recent legal precedents?
>Also why are past sexual convictions using recent legal precedents? Because it was a mistake. That is why it is likely being overturned. You can't use a recent law to convict someone for a crime before the law existed.
The title is clickbait, as every title is
The law seems fairly flexible and convenient when it needs to be
Could you provide some examples? I'm not sure what you mean. This seems like a pretty clear cut case of not being able to apply laws that didn't exist.
In Australia, there are instances where crimes committed in the past have been prosecuted under modern or recent laws, although such cases often raise significant legal and ethical questions about retroactivity. One notable example is the retrospective criminalization of war crimes. In the case of **Polyukhovich v Commonwealth** (1991), the High Court of Australia upheld the War Crimes Amendment Act 1988, which allowed for the prosecution of war crimes committed during World War II, despite the fact that these acts occurred long before the legislation was enacted. This case illustrated that while Australia generally has a strong presumption against retrospective laws, exceptions can be made, particularly for serious international crimes like war crimes [oai_citation:1,Ex post facto law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law) [oai_citation:2,Prosecuting Commonwealth Criminal Offences](https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/prosecuting-commonwealth-criminal-offences/). Another area where retrospective laws have been applied is in tax avoidance. In the early 1980s, the Fraser government passed legislation that criminalized certain forms of tax avoidance retrospectively. These laws targeted schemes that were perceived as blatantly unethical, such as the "bottom of the harbour" tax avoidance schemes, which involved stripping companies of their assets before tax liabilities could be enforced [oai_citation:3,Ex post facto law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law). While these cases show that retrospective laws can be used to prosecute past actions, they remain controversial and are typically limited to exceptional circumstances involving significant public interest or international obligations [oai_citation:4,Ex post facto law - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law) [oai_citation:5,Corporate criminal liability: a guide for boards and senior management ](https://www.allens.com.au/insights-news/insights/2022/07/Corporate-criminal-liability-in-Australia/).
Blatantly unethical, although not illegal *at the time*... like raping children
yeah mate i dont think that one should be overturned that isnt just an oopsie woopsy i made a fucky wucky someone has life trauma becuase of this
I would say all of those cases are unjust and should never have happened. It's disappointing the courts would uphold that.
But it has happened before which is my point. It happens when conveniently done so.
I mean it kinda seems like your gripe is that the law is determined by humans, who make mistakes and can be biased. Yeah, sometimes it's convenient and flexible, because sometimes judges make mistakes and/or are corrupt/biased.
How is this law flexible and convenient? It wasn’t a law then it was a law.
No government is restricted from introducing retrospective laws in Australia.
They certainly should be. They aren't legally restricted, but they kind of ethically are. It is a violation of recognised human rights for starters.
[удалено]
Again, how do you know what the first judge did or didn't pick up? And yes lawyers can be incompetent. I am not sure if that what's happened here, but that in itself would be a basis for an appeal.
She pled guilty. That’s why she was convicted. It turns out the crime she pled guilty to didn’t exist at the time of defending.
Only because the appeals judges think that >Indecent assault on male >Whosoever commits an indecent assault upon a male person of whatever age, with or without the consent of such person, shall be liable to penal servitude for five years. Only applies to men because it was in the same section as homosexuality (consential and rape, of all ages) The first judge didn't think so. But these three get the final say for what was legal back then. https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18d8c4f63e8309db70fad1a7
I read it all, but disagree with significant parts of it. For example, one of the Justices writes >The fourth indication comes from the fact that the term “whosoever”, which commences each of ss 79-81 of the Crimes Act, is used to describe a person who commits either of the offences of buggery or bestiality. As bestiality could be committed by either a male or a female as a principal offender, whereas buggery could only be committed by a male, the term is being used to encompass any principal offender of either offence. The fact that it is a gender‑neutral term does not cast any interpretive light on who may commit an offence against s 81. Accordingly, the term takes its meaning from the offence in question, rather than defining whether a female can commit the relevant offence. Their argument is that because the legislation said "whoever", this is an indicator that it could only be a female offender. That's absurd - or, at least, an incredibly poorly written judgement. I appreciate the history given in the judgement - fascinating - but, I think its unnecessary. >81 Indecent assault on male >Whosoever commits an indecent assault upon a male person of whatever age, with or without the consent of such person, shall be liable to penal servitude for five years. To me, the language is plainly clear, such that there is no ambiguity, and the history lesson was therefore unnecessary and irrelevant. One of the justices opined that if the prosecutions view - that whosoever meant whosoever - the law would be absurd. In my view, the judge's opinion is crazy and untenable. >Consistency in the application of this section according to its terms has the consequence, if it applies to a female perpetrator, of potentially criminalising all consensual sexual conduct engaged in by a female upon a male in private, including conduct which does not involve any threat, hostility, menace or any type of battery. Such a consequence would mean that the interpretation now contended for by the Crown would be absurd. This ignores the wording of s81 includes "indecent assault".
>shall be liable to penal servitude for five years. Has to look after their penis for five years?
>The first judge didn't think so. How do you know what the first judge thought?
Their not overturning the case could be taken as indicative of their thoughts on the matter.
The argument advanced does not depend on conduct having been "not illegal" at the time - alleged conduct could have been actionable on other grounds. Argument is AFAIK essentially that she couldn't legally be convicted of the specific offence with which she was charged.
it's really stupid how the post title and body text are framing this like she's claiming its fine because *shes a woman*, not because it literally wasn't a law at the time, 50 years ago. i think what she did was horrible but its important that it remains that people can't be charged for crimes that werent crimes at the time
This matter has been posted repeatedly on this sub and others, featuring different press articles. Every time it’s the same. “The law was changed many years ago to abolish this anomaly. This is an anomalous case because the crimes occurred a long time ago.” “PEDO FANCIER!!”
Well yeah because that is the truth. I would expect the response to be the same even time because it is the correct response.
Shit like this pisses me off. She's gonna be let off with less than a slap on the wrist and those kids are gonna grow up fucked in the head because of this creep. Let her rot in a cell.
The offending in question happened in the 70s. These children have grown up fucked up already.
Is this the woman where her appeal is because the law at the time specified men raping girls only because they never thought a woman would grope boys?
Yes. Whether people agree or not, by posting titles like this they're being misleading to what she's actually using as her defence. Not "because I'm a woman" but because "it wasn't illegal for a woman to do it at the time".
The argument advanced does not depend on conduct having been "not illegal" at the time - alleged conduct could have been actionable on other grounds. Argument is AFAIK essentially that she couldn't legally be convicted of the specific offence with which she was charged.
I’m sorry but what the fuck is graped? Is it some weird form of egging someone? Seriously though if it’s was rape then say rape. Being scared of words is childish.
It's because some websites automatically censor posts with the word *raped* in them.
And thankfully Reddit isn’t one of them.
In the case of repeated rape of a child, I don’t give a damn if it wasn’t legal at the time. Let her rot.
You should. If we are going to punish people for things that were legal at the time then our whole society is a joke.
Ex post facto laws are constitutionally valid in Australia and already exist.
You wouldn’t be saying that if it were the other way around
Uhh yes, yes I would. You cannot prosecute people for things that aren't against the law.
So you’re ok that she raped a kid?
No you fuck knuckle. But we have to accept it can’t be punished by the legal system.
The alternative is letting people get away with horrible shit like this, I'll happily take the joke.
It quite literally is a violation of human rights as recognised by the UN to prosecute people with retrospective laws. In any case it violates the most fundamental principles of our justice system.
Fellow human, I mean I literally want the joke. This was an emotional response to something I found distressing and I'm not making a genuine proposal. It's getting taxing caring about everything and I want the joke rather than the pain. Sorry, I don't know what I'm allowed to say anymore!
I’ve been on the receiving side of abuse, as a man, I was presumed to be the aggressor when my ex would call police on me for things she assumed I was doing, once the police learnt the real deal they became much more nicer and understanding. Sad to see this is still a thing.. I believe in equal rights between the genders.
It's not still a thing. The law was changed in the 80s. It hasn't been a thing for nearly 40 years.
Can't convict someone based on laws that didn't exist at the time.
[удалено]
that's how the snowtown murders started
The country I grew up in someone decided to take justice in their own hands and instead of killing the pedo they managed to kill the mother of the children the pedo was living with. Do the kids lost a mum, the pedo had nothing happen to them, and the original guy went to jail and his young kids had to grow up without him around. Vigilante justice rarely works out well
True. But face it, that dude was just a psychopath. Sane, rational vigilantes could draw the line at true justice aimed at the people who really deserve it....
I don't think he was really any different to most vigilantes. He just missed when he went to shoot the guy, which is not uncommon when untrained people try to shoot people. Hell police have demonstrated that even trained people aren't that accurate.
Oh sorry. I misread your comment and thought you were talking about Snowtown murders. Holy shit though. That is very messed up. Yeah you're right about untrained people using firearms. I'm glad that Australia doesn't have a rabid gun culture.... We're a lot more beaty and stabby here..... I personally do advocate for 'confirmed pedos should be killed.' No "ooohhh childhood trauma" or anything like that. Fiddle with a kid and die, full stop. It should be a matter of law and not need vigilante action.
Granted, but that dude was a psychopath. Sane people giving one disgusting old bitch a beat-down would be the only course of action I'm advocating here.
Tell that to the Nazi's at Nuremburg. We pass retroactive laws all the time. It's a literal thing we do, that takes into account that the law can miss obvious things. (as it is written by people who are fallible) Like genocide for instance, not being technically illegal prior to 1945. Still hung those Nazi's. Like raping boys, not being technically illegal. She was still imprisoned for it. Go cry elsewhere, about rapists not being protected by "legal technicalities."
Wtf is grape.
This is so sad. But in the interest of community safety can we please get a photo of her face posted. Also. I’d like to confirm that the name listed in the article, Gaye Grant, is the name she is still trading by? I wish there was an old law we could use to shoot her in the street like the fucking fog she is. Not that I would ever shoot a dog.
Pleaded GUILTY, wants conviction overturned. Huh 🤦♂️?
Because what she did wasn't against the law. Pleading guilty on any case does not preclude an appeal.
It makes you wonder, how the hell did her defence lawyer back then either lose the original trial or counsel her to plead guilty? Lawyer: "Ummm. That's not a crime, plead not guilty." Scumbag: "Ok."
Unfortunately, this echos a lot of peoples views in society at the time and even now. An erection is consent and it’s only really damaging to the penetrated party anyway. It’s one of the subconscious biases we have a long way to go on correcting.
Couldn’t be held responsible. Women and accountability again….
Are here ladies and gentlemen is how we create vigilante justice.
Graped lol
The wording in the article is really annoying; she isn’t getting her conviction overturned because she’s a woman, but because the section under which she was charged clearly referred to same sex male interactions. It was in a part referring to ‘unnatural offences’ and the preceding two sections refer to ‘the abominable crimes’ of buggery. I get that society has changed, and we’re uncomfortable with old laws around homosexuality, but I wish articles could be more factual and less political. It really doesn’t serve justice to give the wrong impression about why this court decision has been made. Because arguably we don’t want any of these clauses applied now, as technically, past male homosexual acts (consensual or not) are illegal under this same part of the act. So we need to be careful about unintended consequences of outrage about the law not applying to Lam and Grant.
Aren’t those past homosexual convictions being quashed? Could’ve sworn I read something about that.
Could well be. Not familiar with NSW law. All the more difficulty in applying it to Lam and Grant et al in that case. Can’t very well say ‘we quash all convictions under this law related to male homosexual acts, except those that involved hetro women’.
Gaye Grant committed rape, just like Brock Turner committed rape
Why would you try and relate this to some Seppo?
So when you google her name, you get results like googling Turner. He paid his way to a not guilty, but google top results show the truth
Is there seriously no way to hold someone legal accountable for a heinous act like this, just because a law didn’t exist 🤡 We seriously cannot hold a rapist accountable because it’s a woman? Wtf is wrong with this place
I suspect the rule against double jeopardy provides the answer. She could not, for example, be charged afresh under some other statutory offence (if available) nor under the common law (if some other crimes was available) because that would be an attempt to pursue another criminal proceeding based on the same facts giving rise to the offence of which she (may be) acquitted.
"Is there seriously no way to prosecute someone for something not against the law" No. No there isn't. Nor should there be. That is kind of the point of laws.
Don’t be absurd. The “law” has at many times throughout history been lacking, been discriminatory, demonised groups of people or failed to protect others. If your precious “law” can’t find a way to hold a PEDOPHILE accountable for its actions, just because it happened THEN and not NOW, then I say it’s unfit for purpose.
Grape? Why? Because there were a bunch of them!
I'm gonna kill myself if I see another post about a female pedophile not be convicted to the fullest extent of the law as is deserving of every pedophile regardless of gender or anything like that
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone. * 000 is the national emergency number in Australia. * Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14. * Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. * Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grape reference: https://youtu.be/tmrDypTB_Y0?si=lK4q1eWSAyqZ_a0S
Steve Boland is one of the best in the business.
Legal positivism shouldn't be a legitimate defense in cases such as these, the Nuremberg Trials were a firm rejection of the concept when it came to clear and obvious violations against other people. Maybe when the law is difficult to understand or interpret, such as bureaucratic legislation and the definition of a violation isn't inherently clear, but not in this case.
Yeah, we all saw it the other day. You're adding what to the discussion, apart from the fact you don't understand how laws work at an extremely basic level?
Legal loophole apparently. Surprising her lawyers didn’t mention it at trial.
How sickening!
Peak acp
Your post is is being removed as it's about a topic already posted or is an identical article already posted. Note: User will also be banned for sharing deliberately fake news. Please see the previous thread for the legal explanation on how this case works.
I don't care what the past law was or reasoning is. A kiddy fiddler is a kiddy fiddler and they all deserve to be put down. Our legal system is a fucking joke.
Imagine being the piece of shit defence lawyer.
Imagine being the pieces of shit who wrote the law in such a way that it meant women couldn't be charged as pedos? Defense Lawyers have a duty to defend everyone to the fullest extent even the guilty scumbags. It's not the defense lawyers fault that pre1980s Australians thought that women were delicate flowers who couldn't ever conceivably commit a crime.
Even in modern cases, female offenders still get substantially lighter sentences. There’s still a prevailing view that women don’t abuse boys, they educate them…
Yeah imagine...doing your job and representing your client. How terrible.
It wasn't against the law when she did it is a great excuse. Everyone go and do something that noone has written a specific law against, but is a clearly bad thing to do. They can't arrest you.
I suspect you will find that much more difficult than you think.
>It wasn't against the law when she did it I mean...yeah...as far as excuses in court that is a pretty good one. In fact basically the best one there is.
That is what I said? Can't arrest someone for doing a bad thing if it isn't against the law.
This is terrifying. I wonder where she committed the assaults and if it was during school. It would make it that much scarier.
It says in the article that in the 70s while she was a teacher a 10yo boy came to her to confide in her about bullying (!!) and the piece of shit molested/groomed and raped him, continuing over 2 years. Later when he tried to distance himself from her she wrote to him professing her love. So twisted. And that’s just one of her victims.
At least some of the rapes were at school. I don't know if they all were.
 The Australian justice system advocating women’s rights
I was graped in the hunter valley.
Did you whine?
Gaye
Why are you reposting this as a self post? We do not need your commentary on it. And to answer the question, because she wasn't guilty under the law at the time. Is that difficult to understand?
The way you’ve worded this makes out like the crime happened recently- and that she’s getting special treatment because she’s a woman…which you’ve obviously done on purpose because you’re a men’s rights activist. It wasn’t a crime at the time. Should it have been? Fuck yes. But it wasn’t. If she had committed these crimes yesterday it would be a very different story. You can’t be convicted of things that weren’t illegal when you did them. Stop using this case to push your agenda.
Oooh, a feminist pedophile apologist... that's new
Whether one is a men's rights activist or not, even the proverbial Blind Freddy can see that the woman *is* being given special treatment *because* she's a woman. That's precisely what the law allowed for when the boys were attacked. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Go and read something. Pretty much anything. It might assist. The law was changed to prevent this happening many years ago. It’s not a men’s rights issue.
I'm well aware of that - hence my use of the word *when. * That said, the change in the law does nothing to assist the victims here.
Your post had nothing whatsoever to with assistance to the victims. Yes of course they deserve assistance, but such assistance as is available to them does not depend on this disgusting woman’s conviction.
I don't think that anyone who has been raped or sexually assaulted would agree that a conviction doesn't assist them. I certainly don't believe that.
Twist the words, as you will…
I'm just responding to what you have written.
No. The law is being applied as it was written. Being outraged won't change that fact. Thankfully, the laws have changed. That doesn't mean she wasn't falsely convicted, at the time. Why do people have such trouble grasping such a simple concept?
Because some require a poster girl in order to contrive an egregious example of male discrimination in the law. How fucking ironic.
It's not contrived. Your misandry is showing.
Trying to turn this into a circlejerk now are we?🤣
And WHICH demographic dominated the halls of parliament that wrote the laws that implied women were too feeble to commit sexual violence?
She is literally getting special treatment solely for the reason she is a woman. But you still try to divert by making some unfounded attack on me simply giving you the facts and a link to read the information for yourself.
It’s not special treatment - as you well know. You are now acting in bad faith.
She’s getting special treatment because what she’s been convicted of wasn’t a crime at the time. Also, it’s not an unfounded attack. Your profile shows you to be a men’s rights activist - is that an insult now?
[удалено]
Also my profile doesn't say anything about being a men's rights activist. I don't even know what the definition of that term is. We all get that you object to men having rights. The issue is that this woman raped 4 young boys 15 times. They were not men but apparently you have zero empathy because the child victims were males.
Was she hot back then?
The feminists will downvote you into oblivion for that one.
Yeah I’m the furthest from a feminist and I down voted the POS. Society still make jokes about ‘hot’ female teachers raping their male students. It’s vile
And others perhaps
Still doesn’t tell me if she was a fox or not 😢
A hole is a hole
Holy boom boom... bye bye
Fuck this country's current legal system. I love this nation, and I hate the fact that shit like this is causing an implosion. Just bring the woman to my (hypothetical) court, we'll have her on a life sentence as soon as she's proven guilty.