28 October 2010

Police Wrap - 28 October 2010

| johnboy
Join the conversation
38

1. It’s going to be an interesting trial:

A 47-year-old man from Pearce will appear in the ACT Magistrates Court later today (Thursday, October 28) charged with the sexual assault of a sex worker.

Police will allege that on October 15 the man called the woman and a price was negotiated for sexual services.

On October 21 the man arrived at the house with an envelope he said contained the agreed sum of money. After they had sex the woman checked the envelope to find it did not contain money.

The man left shortly after, promising to return at a later time with the money. However, she has not seen the man since that day.

The woman contacted the Sex Workers Outreach Program who urged her to go to the police.

Police enquiries located the man, they arrested and charged him with sexual intercourse without consent and making off without payment.

UPDATE: The ABC informs us that the gentleman in question is one Akis Livas, and he has been bailed.

2. Belconnen Murder Charges:

ACT Policing Criminal Investigations detectives will charge a 37-year-old former Macquarie man with the murder of Andrew Le Dinh.

The body of Mr Le Dinh was located within his fourth floor apartment on College St, Belconnen on Thursday, May 20. The post-mortem revealed he died from severe head injuries.

CI detectives investigating the case interviewed the man today.

The 37-year-old man will be formally charged with murder, conspiracy to commit a robbery and other offences in the ACT Magistrates Court on November 19.

Join the conversation

38
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I’m sure this is the Canberra times version without the context.

Pork Hunt said :

PBO said :

my sergeant was in a similar situation with a prostitute in Somalia

His nickname wasn’t Rooter by any chance?

Wasnt Rooter, but he did have a knickname and thats all i am saying.

Are you protecting a war criminal?

No body = no crime.

PBO said :

my sergeant was in a similar situation with a prostitute in Somalia

His nickname wasn’t Rooter by any chance?

Wasnt Rooter, but he did have a knickname and thats all i am saying.

Are you protecting a war criminal?

Actually, this is fundamentally no different to the recent case of a tattoo artist being charged with assault after the client discovered that he’d had a penis tattooed on his back.

It didn’t matter that he’d consented to being tattooed – the consent was invalid because it was obtained under false pretences.

The situation would be similar if someone claimed to be a doctor and so you let them perform surgery on you, then later discovered that they weren’t. It’d be assault.

my sergeant was in a similar situation with a prostitute in Somalia

His nickname wasn’t Rooter by any chance?

Wasnt Rooter, but he did have a knickname and thats all i am saying.

I bet he didn’t see that one coming lol

*Andre

Lazy AFP dicks…it’s an easy typo to make but come on

CraigT said :

This is another example of the DPP being dimwits.

This prostitute has been ripped off, not raped.

Probably the best description – but the law ‘is an ass’ after all.

This is another example of the DPP being dimwits.

This prostitute has been ripped off, not raped.

Now, I bet Captain RAAF will have an answer to this one…..?

Over to you Captain….

PBO said :

When I was in the Army back in the 90’s, my sergeant was in a similar situation with a prostitute in Somalia, he had never met her and she was going beserk saying that he owed her money and she would get her family to get it for her.

She was promptly thrown off a bridge and the problem was solved. I think that we can all learn something from that.

Don’t stand on a bridge and make accusations??

When I was in the Army back in the 90’s, my sergeant was in a similar situation with a prostitute in Somalia, he had never met her and she was going beserk saying that he owed her money and she would get her family to get it for her.

She was promptly thrown off a bridge and the problem was solved. I think that we can all learn something from that.

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Don’t they mean making _out_ without payment?

Tetranitrate2:21 pm 28 Oct 10

rosscoact said :

I suppose it would depend on whether you put a part of your body inside a part of the shop keepers body as part of the transaction.

why? what makes this particular service special?

“Assault with a dead weapon”
“Receiver of swollen goods”
I have dozens of them!

Pommy bastard1:54 pm 28 Oct 10

Chaz said :

isn’t that just theft?
😛

Shoplifting.

He (allegedly) agreed to an act of commercial business, (allegedly) made off without paying, so it became an (alleged) act of intercourse without consent, since he (allegedly) misrepresented at the time of inducing an act of commercial sexual services, portentially rendering the commercial services provisions of the Prostitution Act void, and was (allegedly) reckless as to if consent to conduct sexual intercourse would have been provided without a promise of payment.

(Oh, and Canberra women can also withdraw consent as soon as their awareness of certain facts arises, after the initiation of an act of intercourse)

Prostitution Act 1999
Duress
(1) A person shall not, for the purpose of inducing a person to provide or to continue to provide commercial sexual services
(a) intimidate, assault or threaten to assault any person; or
(b) supply or offer to supply a controlled medicine or prohibited substance to any person; or
(c) make a false representation or otherwise act fraudulently.
Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 6 years.

“commercial sexual services” means sexual services provided for monetary consideration or any other form of consideration or material reward (regardless of whether the consideration or reward is, or is to be, paid or given to the prostitute or another person)
“sexual services” means—
(a) an act of sexual intercourse as defined in the Crimes Act 1900, section 50; or
(b) the masturbation of one person by another; or
(c) any activity that involves the use of one person by another for his or her sexual gratification.

Crimes Act 1900 Section 50:
“sexual intercourse” means—
(a) the penetration, to any extent, of the vagina or anus of a person by any part of the body of another person, except if that penetration is carried out for a proper medical purpose or is otherwise authorised by law; or
(b) the penetration, to any extent, of the vagina or anus of a person by an object, being penetration carried out by another person, except if that penetration is carried out for a proper medical purpose or is otherwise authorised by law; or
(c) the introduction of any part of the penis of a person into the mouth of another person; or
(d) cunnilingus; or
(e) the continuation of sexual intercourse as defined in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

Crimes Act 1900: Section 54
Sexual intercourse without consent
(1) A person who engages in sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of that other person and who is reckless as to whether that other person consents to the sexual intercourse is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 12 years.

Criminal Code 2002: Section 322A
Making off without payment
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person knows he or she is required or expected to make immediate payment for goods or services supplied by someone else; and
(b) the person dishonestly makes off—
(i) without having paid the amount owing; and
(ii) with intent to avoid payment of the amount owing.

Here’s an interesting case from Israel. A palestinian guy jailed for rape as the “consenting” female believed that he was Jewish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7901025/Palestinian-jailed-for-rape-after-claiming-to-be-Jewish.html

In a case in sydney where a US navy guy admitted to putting a sex worker in a headlock and refused to stop having sex with her, he was acquitted. It will be interesting to see what our courts make of this.

p1 said :

johnboy said :

Well they don’t normally charge you with assault?

But that is the point, either it was a business transaction and their for some sort of fraud, or it was sexual assault.

The fact that the business owner was under the impression that they had already been paid makes it an interesting question.

If I went into my local shop, handed the sales person a envelope which I said contained money, then took that value in product and left, would I be charged with:

a. Fraud; or
b. assault and robbery?

I suppose it would depend on whether you put a part of your body inside a part of the shop keepers body as part of the transaction.

johnboy said :

On the other hand if they’re arguing that consent obtained under false pretences leads to sexual assault then a lot of young men in mooseheads claiming to be lawyers and dolphin trainers are heading into a world of pain.

Exactly. Saying an envelope has money when it doesn’t is pretty clearly a misrepresentation.

Saying that you are a rich attractive successful young male when you are a unemployed dickhead who looks OK to a pissed person in a dark bar, while also a misrepresentation, is a little less straight forward in court.

Ah, yes … the old “I didn’t know I’d been raped until the cheque bounced”.

And there’s gotta be a “small claims” gag in there somewhere …

Tetranitrate12:29 pm 28 Oct 10

johnboy said :

On the other hand if they’re arguing that consent obtained under false pretences leads to sexual assault then a lot of young men in mooseheads claiming to be lawyers and dolphin trainers are heading into a world of pain.

“He told me he was hung like a horse but he WASN’T!
RAPE!!!”

On the other hand if they’re arguing that consent obtained under false pretences leads to sexual assault then a lot of young men in mooseheads claiming to be lawyers and dolphin trainers are heading into a world of pain.

johnboy said :

Well they don’t normally charge you with assault?

But that is the point, either it was a business transaction and their for some sort of fraud, or it was sexual assault.

The fact that the business owner was under the impression that they had already been paid makes it an interesting question.

If I went into my local shop, handed the sales person a envelope which I said contained money, then took that value in product and left, would I be charged with:

a. Fraud; or
b. assault and robbery?

The idea that consent can be dependant on an additional factor determined after the fact is hard for me to reconcile with the otherwise clear cut (no means no) rules which should make it simple in this country.

Tetranitrate12:23 pm 28 Oct 10

Chop71 said :

I’m sure it will get settled out of court

err no I’m pretty damn sure it won’t as it’s a criminal case – this isn’t her sueing him, it’s the crown prosecuting him for rape.

georgesgenitals said :

I’m not sure how this would be any different from anyone who delivered services (eg mowing a lawn) and then not getting paid for it.

Was her “lawn” mowed?

I’m sure it will get settled out of court

georgesgenitals11:52 am 28 Oct 10

I’m not sure how this would be any different from anyone who delivered services (eg mowing a lawn) and then not getting paid for it.

Well they don’t normally charge you with assault?

Tetranitrate11:52 am 28 Oct 10

how can there have not been consent?
for that to be the case either:
consent can be widthdrawn post facto
or
there was neither consent nor non-consent during the act.

derp?

Captain RAAF11:48 am 28 Oct 10

Rookie error, Monopoly money only works in really backward cultures!

It is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a sex scandal.

Wow. That will be interesting.

Clown Killer11:27 am 28 Oct 10

Interesting indeed. Would that mean that the consideration was an element of ‘consent’ and that in the absence of payment it is argues that ‘consent’ was absent?

I think that the real punishment here will be the fact that this chap will be outed -not only a frequenter of houses of ill repute, but also a monumental tight-arse.

This will be interesting as there is the matter of proof, she will have to prove the events took place. As for being charged with sexual intercourse without consent, apparently they agreed to have sex so there is the consent.

If he wanted to he could turn around and say that she is making vexacious comments.

isn’t that just theft?
😛

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.