-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2025 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt3 - The Verdict
- Thread starter _Mike_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Likeamystery
All Australian
- Aug 11, 2019
- 990
- 2,761
- AFL Club
- West Coast
After an incident is reported, the police usually make arrangements for a victim to provide a statement. As an adult the HH attack was BREs first incident he was charged with - we don't know if there was a juvenile charge/s.
Might it be possible the E family had one or two contacts in high places. Could it be possible BREs parents found out after he was charged with the HH incident. Thinking once the charge was laid no one was in a position to help BRE - even "if" the family had contacts in high places those hands would have been tied, so to speak.
BRE's had a fair trial, how about we start saying it, how it probably was
I love your posts OES because of their depth, but I disagree with you on a few things here.
He committed his offence against Wendy in the course of his work. He didn’t do it outside work (eg while he was in a bar after work). They therefore had a responsibility to ensure the safety of anyone he engaged with while working, because they had knowledge he was dangerous in the course of his work.
Had they fired him, or even just limited his activities, or kept tabs on him, this would have done two things that had an impact. First, it would have meant he had less freedom to do things - he would have known people were watching. Second, he would not have as easily had the cover of a consistent and respected job to use to hide his true persona. Would those women have trusted him enough to get into the car if he was not a Telstra worker? We don’t know for sure, but possibly not.
But most significantly, and perhaps most crucially, it would have meant that when they were asked for information about Telstra workers in connection with a violent crime, he would have been on Telstra’s radar to provide the relevant information to the police. This may not have stopped all his crimes, but they may have stopped some, or at least ensured he was brought to justice sooner.
Other, more serious assault or sex offenses may also have been available, especially the attempt of them (I have not fully checked for 1990 because it is a tedious process to check old versions of legislation).
Common assault is the lowest of all the assault offences, and his offence on Wendy’s relaying of it was not the lowest of all assault offences. You can be charged with common assault for shoving someone in a bar. In this case there was a premeditated element (he checked the toilets); he used a cloth to keep her quiet; he was dragging her into the toilets. There was a deprivation of liberty element; whether or not it satisfied the definition of that per se, it’s also indicative of a higher category of crime.
While sex offences and issues relating to attempts were fleshed out in Criminal Code amendments in 2004, the basics necessary for these charges existed in 1990.
They did manage to link crimes before databases via fingerprints, so I think they could have done some manual checking here. The reason they didn’t, in my view, is because for one reason or another, they did not take the attack on Wendy seriously for what it was.
I completely see your point here, but I think that Telstra’s protection of him did have a big impact.
He committed his offence against Wendy in the course of his work. He didn’t do it outside work (eg while he was in a bar after work). They therefore had a responsibility to ensure the safety of anyone he engaged with while working, because they had knowledge he was dangerous in the course of his work.
Had they fired him, or even just limited his activities, or kept tabs on him, this would have done two things that had an impact. First, it would have meant he had less freedom to do things - he would have known people were watching. Second, he would not have as easily had the cover of a consistent and respected job to use to hide his true persona. Would those women have trusted him enough to get into the car if he was not a Telstra worker? We don’t know for sure, but possibly not.
But most significantly, and perhaps most crucially, it would have meant that when they were asked for information about Telstra workers in connection with a violent crime, he would have been on Telstra’s radar to provide the relevant information to the police. This may not have stopped all his crimes, but they may have stopped some, or at least ensured he was brought to justice sooner.
Indecent assault was available to them to charge him with, as was attempted indecent assault. This makes it a sex crime and puts him in the frame when checking sex offences down the track.
Other, more serious assault or sex offenses may also have been available, especially the attempt of them (I have not fully checked for 1990 because it is a tedious process to check old versions of legislation).
Common assault is the lowest of all the assault offences, and his offence on Wendy’s relaying of it was not the lowest of all assault offences. You can be charged with common assault for shoving someone in a bar. In this case there was a premeditated element (he checked the toilets); he used a cloth to keep her quiet; he was dragging her into the toilets. There was a deprivation of liberty element; whether or not it satisfied the definition of that per se, it’s also indicative of a higher category of crime.
While sex offences and issues relating to attempts were fleshed out in Criminal Code amendments in 2004, the basics necessary for these charges existed in 1990.
Yes, agree with all the above. I had a few beers last night and perhaps my post wasn't worded very well....
? I don’t think I’ve seen a post of yours I didn’t like yet!
Sorry - not you....I think OES didnt like my post.
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,235
- 44,710
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Worked out where all the 6PR replays/podcasts are stored and found the Wendy Davis one 28 Sep 2020
Bradley Edwards Victim: "The police didn't take a statement" - 6PR Mornings - Omny.fm
One of the Claremont Killer's assault victims has broken her silence. Wendy Davis was employed at Hollywood Hospital in 1990 - when she was hit from behind and was dragged towards a toilet by Bradley Robert Edwards. She managed to escape and Edwards was charged with common assault at the time...
omny.fm
That wasn’t common assault.Ms Finch, you need to listen to the West's podcast last night on this too.
A full 48 minutes interview by Tim and Natalie with Wendy Davis
It's an absolute must listen
Brilliant work Tim and Nat + Wendy
I assume that you missed it.
Here's the direct link to it again
The Hollywood Hospital Victim: In Her Own Words - CLAREMONT: The Trial
May 7, 1990 was the day that changed Wendy Davis’ life. A social worker at Hollywood Hospital, she was going about her day when Telstra worker and now convicted killer Bradley Edwards attacked her, grabbing her from behind and dragged her back towards some toilets. But she fought him off, and...omny.fm
I would have to check the legislation of the time for what options were specifically available as significant changes have been made since. However, there were options above common assault such as assault occasioning bodily harm*. There are also sex crimes such as indecent assault and greater, and deprivation of liberty offenses. Plus there are the attempts of these, intent to commit these and possible aggravation factors depending on when these were incorporated. *May have been called something else (I checked the original Criminal Code, the current one and several Amendments so I’m paraphrasing from all of them and terminology has changed over the years.) Frankly I think this was closer to attempted murder than common assault.
The police were lazy and incompetent, typically uninterested in crimes against women. They HAD THE EVIDENCE. Wendy’s version is evidence, the security guard had evidence, Wendy’s visit to the doctor is evidence, and checking out Edwards’ history may have been evidence.
What I find particularly disgusting about this is that Wendy was a social worker at work when it happened. While all crimes against women should be taken seriously for what they are, even in those extremely sexist times, that it occurred in a workplace to a professional should have resulted in it being taken more seriously. She would also have been a seriously respectable witness.
Not taking any sort of formal statement from Wendy is indicative to me that they wanted to keep it a summary offence/misdemeanor rather than an indictment. Either way, it was just such a case of “can’t be bothered”. Can’t be bothered listening to her, can’t be bothered taking it seriously, can’t be bothered doing the paperwork, can’t be bothered investigating. They didn’t even bother to communicate with her at all. She didn’t know the full outcome.
Telstra despicably went into damage control of their employee and organisation. It was disgusting that they called Wendy to any sort of meeting as it is, and beyond disgusting the way they handled it. They were, in my view, concerned about their own liability and also protecting their employee. In particular, the fact that there is no record of it in his file suggests to me it was deliberately kept off. That’s protecting him, whatever the reason and whatever the intent.
I also think that what gets lost in all this is the impact on Wendy’s life. The focus is on how it didn’t prevent worse, but it is bad enough that it left Wendy feeling humiliated and afraid, had to move away from the job she loved, and suffering injustice. That alone should have the police and Telstra hanging their heads in shame.
Last edited:
Listening to this mad me angry.Ms Finch, you need to listen to the West's podcast last night on this too.
A full 48 minutes interview by Tim and Natalie with Wendy Davis
It's an absolute must listen
Brilliant work Tim and Nat + Wendy
I assume that you missed it.
Here's the direct link to it again
The Hollywood Hospital Victim: In Her Own Words - CLAREMONT: The Trial
May 7, 1990 was the day that changed Wendy Davis’ life. A social worker at Hollywood Hospital, she was going about her day when Telstra worker and now convicted killer Bradley Edwards attacked her, grabbing her from behind and dragged her back towards some toilets. But she fought him off, and...
Me too. I had to take breaks.
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,235
- 44,710
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think this has been discussed on here before, but back then, would the Courts or those running the sex offenders course have been required to provide any written information about either the conviction or course to Telstra HR/Legal?
And if it happened today, and it was only a common assault charge, would the legal requirements have changed (since 1990) re the above about who is required to formally inform Telstra what, when. and in what form, and get confirmation that they had actually received and read and noted or taking action regarding any communications from them (the courts or those running/coordinating the sex offenders program)?
And how about if it was a more serious charge, like sexual/indecent assault or deprivation of liberty?
And if it happened today, and it was only a common assault charge, would the legal requirements have changed (since 1990) re the above about who is required to formally inform Telstra what, when. and in what form, and get confirmation that they had actually received and read and noted or taking action regarding any communications from them (the courts or those running/coordinating the sex offenders program)?
And how about if it was a more serious charge, like sexual/indecent assault or deprivation of liberty?
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I dont disagree that many things could have been done differently & many others absolutely should have been done very differently & of course there appears to be far too many missed opportunities through many years of the investigation where we dont know exactly how he managed to fall through the cracks. Indeed whether some of those cracks at least, were potentially manufactured whether by persuasion or manipulation by those of influence along the way or otherwise. We don't know where any of those answers lie definitively or what impact anything done differently may have had though.
Its also possible there may have been a real fear where BRE is concerned, perhaps by those quite close to him, of the impact that losing his job for example, may have had. Perhaps even thwarted everything they knew to do & thought was the absolute best thing they could do & were already doing to attempt to keep him in check, to keep him busy & to keep him close where there were eyes on him. The sentiment expressed thus far appears to presume his assistance came yielding a rather large broom & an even larger rug to facilitate a role as protector, when the reality may have been very different. It may have been motivated by fear of things they imagined may happen if he was removed & left to his own devices & it may have taken a great deal of pleading or other unknown assurances to guarantee he kept his employment at all. Reality is we dont know & alot of the questions we have about these things likely wont ever be known for numerous reasons. The length of time past, records not being kept, peoples memories fading, people retiring, dying, telling lies, whatever. Perhaps confidential agreements on a hamdshake between trusted parties who legitimately believed they were already ‘handling' their ‘situation’ & who genuinely thought they were doing the right thing by attempting or assisting to minimise any other unknowns.
Whilst we would all really like to know and we imagine the victims & their families & friends absolutely deserve to have these things known, they may not actually want to know now & we probably wont ever get these answers anyway regardless if some third party steps in to attempt to demand that those who may know provide answers to them.
Theres no doubt it would be preferred that one or more of these potential ball droppers would raise their hand to admit their part but by the buck passing, denials and silence we’ve seen so far, I’m not holding my breath for a moment.
It was a very different time to today across the board. Policing was different. Attitudes & behaviours were different & Telstra were going through some major changes too. Whilst I agree with your comments regarding the image Telstra was looking to portray & Id suggest were quite effective in achieving that, I dont think that fact alone is enough to make someone alter their usual behaviours. If you were someone who felt safe enough to hitchike for example, you weren’t selective of the vehicle you chose to enter. It didnt matter who it was, you were either prepared to get in the car with an unknown person or you weren’t.
I was. I hitchiked everywhere in the decade between Birnies & CSK, day or night, alone or in company, didnt matter. I had friends who werent like that at all though & never once considered it regardless if there was 4 of us, it was 10am & we were going to the beach. You were comfortable or you weren’t & of those I knew that weren’t, they certainly couldnt have been persuaded by virtue of it being a Telstra vehicle or another company who appeared more familiar or trustworthy over any other. Sure, some people may have felt more at ease to be in a readily identifiable car with any perceived safety their reputation brought, but those people would more than likely have accepted a lift with whoever happened to stop for them. And many people did stop regardless if you had your finger out or not. A couple of guys with room in the back generally always pulled up to a couple of girls walking along. It was the nature of the times. Ive been picked up by people who stopped to pick others up more times than I could count. I've even been in a full car & had them slow to ask even more girls where they were going & told them they'd be back as soon as they dropped us off or even kicked blokes out of the car to let the girls in. I've never once had a friend who chose never to hitchike, change their mind & decide to do so based on who the person who stopped to pick us up was. There was no grey areas that Ive experienced in that regard and none of my non hitchiking friends would have ever felt the level of level of security with anyone that ever saw them change their habits. Not least because they werent ever there waiting to see who might pick us up anyway prior to making a decision & if they didnt hitch with us, they certainly weren't dropping their guard whilst alone.
Re: Telstra discussions. Sure, Id expect they'd have spoken to whoever would listen & I imagine they’re not the only company who would have. But I'd expect theyd have sent their lawyers in or someone with enough swing to make decisions on Telstras behalf to ensure they didnt walk out with a massive claim to settle because of it. If you think they were able to persuade the cops to agree to downgrade the charges they laid for whatever reason I would question what was in it for them or what relationships existed already or who may have facilitated any such arrangement & surely if it was not standard practice, then it existed on both sides and the police are probably equally responsible if it occured. In saying that, he had already admitted his attack and was being detained by security & awaiting police to arrive long before Telstra would have had an opportunity to speak with anyone. If strings were in fact pulled thereafter Id suggest the exact nature will never see the light of day as neither one will be keen to admit it was par for the course in the way business was handled back then.
Just to clarify too, the additional comments I was responding to originally, were in a post not quoted said that Telstra "allowed" him to abduct & murder girls and its "employees" should be held responsible for the deaths. Pretty strong sentiment IMO.
Last edited:
Girlnextdoor
All Australian
- Mar 12, 2018
- 643
- 3,220
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Exactly MsFinch about the premeditation, i was thinking that today about the "dishcloth" he used on poor Wendy. He was all prepared. The cable ties he could possibly explain as part of his work, but weren't they tied up already in a size to slip on wrists? Think i remember seeing them like that in the reenactment? Certainly premeditation there too!
SquiffyRae
Team Captain
- Sep 28, 2020
- 366
- 1,082
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the cable ties were made up ready to slip onto a person's wrists but I can't remember where
As strange as it may sound, neither courts nor police officially inform anyone unless there is a specific order or reason to do that (such as someone convicted of crimes against children being a teacher). I don’t think the people running a sex offenders course would even be allowed to for privacy reasons, unless the person was enrolled in it by their company.
My thinking is that this type of thing would come down to an employee’s contract and what is contained therein, and the company’s policies and governing documents around these types of issues. I presume these would be significantly different nowadays to back in 1990, with these types of things far less acceptable and companies more concerned with legal liability and social responsibility. It would be up to the employee to notify the company or the company to find out what had happened.
The police may “unofficially” inform an organisation, either because they question people at the company or because it is necessary (eg if a teacher is accused of crimes against children). Even then police are limited in the charge phase due to people being regarded as innocent until proven guilty, although sometimes something specific such as it relating to children can allow them to reveal information. That puts a company on notice for what to pay attention to. In this case Telstra have no excuse to not know because the incident occurred in the course of Edwards work. What their employee contracts said and what their company policies were is another matter. They were the public service then as well, which adds another complexity to it.
I will tell you a story that will perhaps better characterise this.
Several years ago, a friend of mine’s husband was charged with the violent rape and deprivation of liberty of a woman. He did this while she was away, and tied the woman to their bed. The whole thing was utterly sick. This wasn’t the first time he’d attacked another woman. She had a fair idea what was going on but because he wasn’t abusing her she’d basically turned a blind eye.
After she told me what she knew I hit the roof. I can’t repeat what I said to her on the phone; I’d be banned for life. (I had only met her husband once. We lived in different states and used to holiday together elsewhere to catch up.) I contacted police and told them what I knew. I begged them to call his school because the women he had attacked were not much older than high school students (18/19). They couldn’t, because he had only been charged. I asked about the working with children check and was told that that would take time to work it’s way through the system and that wasn’t always reliable until after someone is convicted and goes on the sex offenders register. The police were frustrated in this instance because they wanted to inform the school. What they did say was that if someone else told the school and the school contacted them, they could confirm certain things.
So I rang the school. I spoke to the principal who defended him claiming that he was a “good teacher” and “nice guy”. I rang the education department who told me that I was “obviously emotional about the situation” and basically dismissed me. I then wrote formally to the regional director and they told me they would “conduct an investigation”. I threatened to go to the media and THAT’S when it changed. Suddenly they wanted to know if they could speak to someone in the police, if I could give them a name. But it took that much effort, and me quite literally screaming at bureaucrats that I would make it known they were protecting a sex offender. He was sacked due to breach of contract.
So there’s this absurd system in place: If the school knew about the charges they had to sack him due to the various requirements for his job and in his contract. But nobody official could tell them about the charges per se and had to at least wait until he was convicted, and even then it would have taken the administrative revocation of his working with children check or police going out of their way to inform the school. There was no “official requirement to inform”.
Suffice to say my friend and I no longer speak. She thinks I “ruined his life”. I think she enabled a violent rapist.
I was a bit like girlnextdoor in that I thought he could have argued his way out of that one, but if they were already pre-purposed to tie someone up then that is not only another element of intent, it’s evidence in support of a more substantial charge.
I’ll add a couple of things that are perhaps relevant to Telstra and the police specifically.
What truly got me when I rang the school and the department is that they told me what I was saying was just an opinion and I really should be careful about spreading rumours like that. No matter how many times I said, “Him having been CHARGED is not an opinion. The police will confirm it.”, they ignored me. This was an organisation with a duty of care to children and they were still protecting him and trying to make me think I was doing the wrong thing.
This was 2015, they had a specific duty of care, I was not personally emotionally affected like this, the police were on my side, and I nearly gave up. Wendy had no chance.
As much as Telstra need to be investigated here for the fact that they did not record anything about what Edwards had done (and they should have at least done that), the police need to answer why they didn’t charge him with something more significant and support Wendy against Telstra. The significance of the charge and conviction may have forced Telstra’s hand more. Even with even worse attitudes and less company responsibility, there is a huge difference between a common assault charge and a more serious assault offence or a sex crime.
Organisations do, to this day, care more about their employees and their company reputation than any victims of crime. It has to become clear to them that their reputation is not worth the protection of the employee. And that’s where police making more of a fuss about this both with the charge and with their involvement may have made a difference.
Nonetheless, Edwards committed his offence while he was working on the job for Telstra. They didn’t need an official charge or a conviction of anything to, in my view, have a responsibility to take action against him. I suspect one of the reasons they protected him was to avoid their own liability. And one of the reasons I think no details of this were recorded in his file was so they had plausible deniability if he did anything again. Telstra still needs to answer to this, though, because either they deliberately protected an individual who went on to kill multiple women or they protected their company and that indirectly resulted in the murder of multiple women.
Rocky2014
Debutant
- Dec 3, 2019
- 100
- 295
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The "more serious charge" is a really interesting point in my opinion, because what he did seems to fit with common assault as it was defined at the time. It doesn't look like indecent assault was added to the criminal code until 1992, and in any case, it's fairly vague in defining what amounts to indecent. From the indecent assault cases I've read, there is almost always an actual touch of the genitals, breasts, or buttocks - I can't recall that ever coming up in this case. Regardless, if 8t wasn't available at the time, they couldn't charge him with it.
Now, we all know what he was intending to do, including, it appears, the magistrate at the time (assuming he ordered the sexual offenders course because he believed the motivation was indeed sexual in nature). However, that's a slightly different position to what the police thought they could get a conviction on. It doesn't look particularly strong on attempted rape, attempted sexual assault, or on attempted deprivation of liberty, purely because the victim was able to break free before he got her too far away from her desk.
From my understanding, going above common assault would've transferred the decision on the charge across to the state prosecutor as an indictable offence - i can only assume that they felt that the prosecutor would reject a higher charge due to an unreasonable prospect of conviction, so they went with assault.
Now, if the magistrate heard evidence which suggested a sexual element, he'd still only be able to convict on the charge brought before him (he pleaded guilty to CA from memory) - he couldn't change the charge - but that wouldn't preclude him from ordering attendance by the offender at certain courses. Given he had no prior record, and no knowledge of his previous or future offending, I can see how it all could have played out the way it did, although clearly it appears to be a great injustice with enormous consequences.
As for Telstra, well that's just about the level of incompetence I would expect from them both then and now..
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Just opinions Java, we don't have to share them & I have no problem with a differing point of view, so long as you don't mind hearing mine too.
I understand the outrage & the incredulousness & have shared it many times, but I also realise that for every thing we do hear, there's much more we don't & probably won't ever know that may just give us the missing context or additional detail that would help to understand it better if we did. The harder something is to comprehend the more likely it is theres much more to know.
If I had any influence to crack some heads and force the details I want to hear to come out I'd do that, but I dont, so I don't see the point getting too hung up on the what ifs or why didnt they. Nor what they could have or should have done instead & how it would have been so different .... if only!
It didn't happen & it changes nothing by getting up in arms about it either. You just say **** me, this is just bullshit & hope to god something changes. With Dawsons attitude on display it appears it probably wont, but who knows, it may be his way of saying well **** me, this is bullshit too.
Port Adel Proud
All Australian
- Apr 22, 2020
- 724
- 991
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Teaching, like many occupations/professions, carries with it an important duty not to do harm; one heightened by the vulnerability of children. Disclosure of wrongdoing being notoriously difficult. Investigations by schools and even the authorities which oversee them are a species of self regulation. Self regulation is often tantamount to no, or sub optimal, real oversight. That begets endemic wrongdoing.
You did the right thing. Peeling back the layers of entrenched self protection behaviours can only be achieved by pursuing vigorous, persistent complaint to the police.
The unsurprising evidence is that if there is one young sexual abuse victim there will be more. Only further investigation by the police will unearth them. Multiple victims greatly enhance the prospects of convictions (and, importantly, better protection of the community) because all alleged offences may be tried together; each victim's evidence bolstering each other's.
FFS, BRE is proof of what I say, except in a different occupation. There were more victims- even by the time of the HH attack. Complaint, then, failed to excite further investigation to the eternal shame of the police.
Last edited:
Port Adel Proud
All Australian
- Apr 22, 2020
- 724
- 991
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I think you will find that what we know as indecent assault has always been around. In relation to children, perhaps as indecent dealing.
Last edited:
Port Adel Proud
All Australian
- Apr 22, 2020
- 724
- 991
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Mmm, complain to Telstra? Visions of the complaint being "escalated" from one Indian call centre to another on endless loop 
Indecent assault has been there since 1913. It was around the 1990s that they started tidying up the Criminal Code with regards to assaults and sex offences - adding headings, fleshing them out, changing the layout. But it was definitely there.
It’s the attempt of it that interests me, because attempt was also available. The crime itself has to be in the legislation before the attempt can be applied (because attempt is an overarching category that is applied, unless otherwise specified as in a few matters) which was why I listed all the other offences.
Then there are higher categories of assault and sex crimes that may be applicable as well, and the attempts of those. They were all written a bit differently to how they are now, but almost all of them exist in one form or another. I think they could have gone for a much higher offence in terms of the attempt of it. Especially since charging with the higher offence opens the door to the attempt of it.
I agree with you that they wanted to keep it a non indictement, but I don’t think they ever approached the OPP. They never got a formal statement from Wendy and it would surprise me if the OPP made a judgement about the case without that. I think they just decided to minimise the matter themselves to limit how much work they had to do on it, and because they did not (and do not) take those sorts of crimes against women seriously.
Thanks.
Yes, the difference in police was marked. In the case of my friend’s husband they were already convinced that there must be a history and were really keen to hear what I had to say, and very supportive of finding a way for me to report it. In Wendy’s situation they completely ignored the violent nature of the crime and the potential sexual component. Even if they had decided only to charge him with common assault in the end, they should have at least investigated his history first.
It was a different era, and (some) strides have been made in our attitudes towards crimes against women and our understanding of patterns of behaviour. I hope that at the very least the failures in Claremont that are so markedly in the spotlight elicit further change in these areas. At least for the next couple of years, you’d be a very silly and/or lazy police officer not to treat a situation like Wendy’s differently.
I completely agree with you about self regulation. It’s a farce because it entrenches protection. Organisations are only afraid of the information coming out and reflecting on them; they are not interested in their responsibilities to the community per se.
Port Adel Proud
All Australian
- Apr 22, 2020
- 724
- 991
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Around the 1990s, as you correctly state, the code has been progressively (in more ways than one) amended first, to replace old notions of rape and buggery with offences of sexual penetration of any body part by any body part. Second, to criminalise various conduct concerning the taking advantage, in various forms, of someone's sexual activity. Third, there has been some further circumscription of a defence available to an offender who offends against a child under 13 years.
The reforms have been for the good.
MightyFreo
Draftee
- Dec 12, 2019
- 10
- 46
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Or maybe pulls up in a Telstra vehicle to the phone box she is at
"Oh I've come to repair the phone it's been reported as faulty- strange it's working is it- you managed to call a taxi
Oh well I can give you a lift if you like I'm heading that way"
- Status
