8 year old girl admits lying about rape allegations

[FlyMeToDunoon]

I felt really sad about this for more than one reason.
here

No wonder we never get convictions for rape....here we are blaming the victim again, at 8 years old. Why should you first thought be, "this didn't happen?" and think of " the poor boys". It would never have got to court on spurious grounds, there was clearly material available that showed a rape had more likely taken place than not.

"It would still be rape...she cannot consent at 8 years old. Rape also now covers putting the penis in the mouth also."

Well no age is irrelevant to a charge of rape, in Ireland anyway we're normally similar to the UK so I stand to be corrected, but it would come under other sexual offences such as sexual assault or Sexual offences against children.
If you were looking to prosecute for rape you wouldn't have the significant mens rea for it if the girl consented as the mens rea for "legal rape" is non-consensual sex. Consent however is not a defence to the variety of child sexual offences or sexual assaults if the person is a minor.

"Rape also now covers putting the penis in the mouth also."

Sorry just reading that again, if true, makes it clear that we do vary on this legal issue so you may very well have age requirments with "pure rape" for want of a better term so I'm probably way off with my previous post.
Please Ignore.

Are 10 year old boys even capable of rape?

I would imagine they would be just flopping their willies about.

But I have never been a 10 year old boy.

The whole thing is very

They are at the age of criminal responsibility at 10 and you don't have to have an erect penis to rape

scurryfunge Fri 14-May-10 13:11:31
"It would never have got to court on spurious grounds, there was clearly material available that showed a rape had more likely taken place than not"

So how come other cases get to court on spurious grounds? What about the Shieldfield case where children were making allegations about adults they had never actually met?

And what is this material available that showed that rape had more likely taken place than not? There was no physical evidence of damage to the genitalia, that much is clear.

And if this was indeed a case of three children taking down their own knickers and pants, why are the boys more guilty than the girl?

Scurryfunge given that the alleged assailants are children of 10 and in most civilised European countries would not be at the age of criminal responsiblity, I don't think that you can treat this case the same way you would treat a case of rape where the victim and assailant were adults.

If a ten year old is committing rape at all, chances are it's because he's a victim of sexual abuse himself and I defy anyone to claim that a 10 year old is really able to understand rape as a concept in the way an adult can.

This case appears to have been very oddly handled, at the very least, but perhaps that's because the reporting of it is so inadequate. It's very telling that the only bit of the case which made headlines, was the bit where the 8 year old said she was not raped - no-one has reported anything else particularly, which is par for the course and of course doesn't add to any understanding of this case or of rape cases in general.

My point was that cases like these never usually make it to court because of the lack of material to suggest it happened. In this case, especially because of the ages of the childen concerned, there must have been something to get it this far.

I agree that the reporting doesn't give us any real ideas as to what really happened. The age of criminal responsibility, like it or not, is 10 years. I agree that that the defendants in the case are likely to have come froman abusive background themselves...we cannot use this if it creates further victims,can we? Otherwise no one would get dealt with in the courts.

You don't need physical damage to the genitalia for a rape to have taken place either.

Well tbh I think that cases like this - IE involving children - probably shouldn't be getting to court.

It seems to me entirely inappropriate that the criminal justice system is used to deal with children.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be dealt with, just questioning if the CJ system is the best place for that.

The report in the link shows very clearly the defence barrister asking leading questions. An eight year old might well agree with an adult even if the adult isn't describing events accurately.

Not clear at all what happened. Terribly sad for all the children involved. But that style of questioning is very troubling. Of course the defence has a job to do, but leading questions are not going to establish the truth with a child witness.

imo this should never ever have gone near a court...these are all children and it is a matter for social services!

thing is there's no way of knowing what led to these questions though as obviously a full transcript of the cross-examination has not been published.

As for "it would still be rape" of course it wouldn't. The age of consent is sixteen. That doesn't just applies to girls, so if all of these children consentually (in their minds) carried out sexual acts between themselves then none of them was at an age to consent.

haven't read all the posts

on the BBc it said that

the original video evidence that teh court has seen, included the girl describing (in simple terms) being raped

that piece also said that the judge said to the girl "miss xxx (defence lawyer) is a very nice lady but you don't have to answer yes to everything she asks you"

i will try and find the link

wannabe, anyone under 13 cannot consent to any sexual activity by law. There is no suggestion that any offence was committed against the boys. If they are engaging in sexual activity all could be committing offences against eachother, in which case it wouldn't get to court. The suggestion with this case is that a rape took place

But scurryfunge I've been looking for a definition of UK rape which contains an age requirment and can't find one. Am curious now if there is a difference between UK and Irish law. While I accept the possibility of other charges (sexual assault based offence or possibly what is commonly known as 'statutory' rape" or sexual offences against) but if it is a charge of pure rape (for want of a better term) and there is no age requirment then consent, regardless of the persons age, would be a defence to a charge of rape if it is similar to over here.
Can anyone clarify this for me?

mayorquimby- you wont find a defintion of uk rape because there isnt one. The english and scottish legal systems define rape differently, although this is due to change.

in english law, any insertion of a penis of a person of at least 10 years into any part of a person (male or female) under 13 is rape.

consent is not an issue in a case where the victim is under 13. there is an automatic presumption of non-consent in under 13s.

i agree that there is a lot more to this case than what has been in the papers today. for it to get to court there must have been significant evidence, other than the girl's word, that a rape took place.

possibilities could be: the boys admitted it, the girl had injuries consistant with rape, the girl had sexual knowledge only attributable to having had sexual experience, other witnesses who observed any of the children's behaviour before or after the event.

cheers. Would appear it is different then.

yes i agree this is a very sad case. Has it been thought of by all that the time of day the cross examination took place was not app? She had been up at a normal time an 8yo gets up and taken to court. Taking some time im sure and then having to spend all day being spoken TOO as opposed to being able to relax. By the time the defense barrister would have got to her she would have been very tired and probably saying anything to get away from the barragement of open ended questions that appear to have been asked in a format that she felt by answering yes or no would please the person asking the questions. It states that she was exhausted by the time the day was done. Is this fare on a child so young!
Let us not guess and then believe all that is printed as things are not always as they seem me thinks!

Well we are the country who allows 4yo rape victims to be cross examined.

So I'm not at all surprised that she was in the stand all day.

The trial continues today :todayarticle

yes. and todays article tells us ..... not thta much more i am afraid. although i thought the picture of the mother and the two boys gave too much information about them away, don't you ?

"In two police interviews the girl claimed that she was repeatedly raped in an ordeal that saw her dragged from a stairwell to bin sheds and finally into a field."

scurryfunge i think we are singing from the same sheet. At 10 years of age the development of a boys geniltailia would not suggest that they could have been capable of causing any serious injury...part of the definition of penetration is that it only has to be more than merely preparitory!
I believe that this decision by the CPS would not have been made likely as this case is making legal history as defendants of this age hav never been charged ith rape before.
There can be no kudos for any person dealing with any part of this case. The chnce of a conviction is extremely slim and all other options should have been been considered in order to prevent this process as it is in court in order to find out what had happened and also what is est for the welfare of all of the children.
I do have concerns when some people state that it was just horse playing around and that its just kids being kids. If that was the case then we would not be in this current situation!!!!

oblomov show me were it says she was repeatedly raped?

It says it near the beginning of the article that oblomov has linked to.

well its clear that it only happened in the field!

todays article was the first time that i had seen it been refered to as REPEATEDLY raped.