Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Richardson groomer arrested

By johnboy - 12 September 2008 14

The AFP bring word that they’ve arrested a 35 year old Richardson man on charges of “using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age and possession of child pornography.”

    Police will allege the male made contact with a 15-year-old, Melbourne girl, whom he met in Canberra through family friends and groomed her for sex.

    The man is alleged to have contacted the victim using social networking internet sites and via text messages.

    During the search warrant police located two computers and other electronic storage devices which contained images alleged to be child pornography.

Sounds like a dumb saddo.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
14 Responses to
Richardson groomer arrested
Deref 10:10 am 24 Apr 11

SupamanDatHo said :

Before Australia became a nation of wowser bogans, it was called Mentoring.

No, it was called Catholicism.

Tooks 8:42 am 24 Apr 11

SupamanDatHo said :

Before Australia became a nation of wowser bogans, it was called Mentoring.

Are you a troll or just a paedophile sympathiser (or worse)?

SupamanDatHo 8:13 pm 23 Apr 11

Before Australia became a nation of wowser bogans, it was called Mentoring.

G-Fresh 6:52 pm 14 Sep 08

Loquaciousness said :

RuffnReady said :

I bet if it was done through the post there would be an applicable postal law, and if done face-to-face, possibly soliciting or suborning? I doubt that the grooming law is restricted to e-media only.

Ah yeah, good point. Maybe someone familiar with the law could clue me in a bit here? My curiosity is getting the better of me … 😛

L

http://www.austlii.edu.au

Loquaciousness 6:06 pm 14 Sep 08

RuffnReady said :

I bet if it was done through the post there would be an applicable postal law, and if done face-to-face, possibly soliciting or suborning? I doubt that the grooming law is restricted to e-media only.

Ah yeah, good point. Maybe someone familiar with the law could clue me in a bit here? My curiosity is getting the better of me … 😛

L

RuffnReady 5:50 pm 14 Sep 08

I bet if it was done through the post there would be an applicable postal law, and if done face-to-face, possibly soliciting or suborning? I doubt that the grooming law is restricted to e-media only.

Loquaciousness 5:28 pm 14 Sep 08

RuffnReady said :

But he hadn’t done anything to her yet. I think it’s a good thing that we have laws like this one which allow the police to charge this sick f#cker BEFORE he does anything to her or anyone else. Obviously the law is designed to catch internet predators in the process leading up to the physical criminal act, and that can only be a good thing.

Indeed. But what if he was living next door to her, or was her pen-pal (remember them, pen-pals? Wow, I feel old all of a sudden) … then he can do whatever he wants as far as grooming, and isn’t committing an illegal act until he actually *touches* her.

While I agree that the law is good, I think it’s sort of a strange distinction to make.

L

RuffnReady 5:17 pm 14 Sep 08

Aurelius said :

So the charge wouldn’t carry any weight if he’d done it without using his phone/net connection. It’s rather poor that we’re still relying on this kind of thing being a crime against the phone network, rather than for what he’d done to the kid.

But he hadn’t done anything to her yet. I think it’s a good thing that we have laws like this one which allow the police to charge this sick f#cker BEFORE he does anything to her or anyone else. Obviously the law is designed to catch internet predators in the process leading up to the physical criminal act, and that can only be a good thing.

Loquaciousness 4:46 pm 14 Sep 08

Aurelius said :

So the charge wouldn’t carry any weight if he’d done it without using his phone/net connection. It’s rather poor that we’re still relying on this kind of thing being a crime against the phone network, rather than for what he’d done to the kid.

Actually, when you put it like that, the whole thing is rather disturbing. I didn’t read the charge that way, but I guess it’s a reasonable interpretation.

Ick.

L

Loquaciousness 4:42 pm 14 Sep 08

Deano said :

Actually I’m wasn’t quite correct there. From the Telecommunications Act, “carriage service” means a service for carrying communications by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy.

So (excuse my ignorance), that means that telephone and email/IM are considered a “carriage service” but post isn’t (unless Posties are considered electromagnetic, I guess)?

L

Aurelius 4:41 pm 14 Sep 08

So the charge wouldn’t carry any weight if he’d done it without using his phone/net connection. It’s rather poor that we’re still relying on this kind of thing being a crime against the phone network, rather than for what he’d done to the kid.

Deano 4:39 pm 14 Sep 08

Actually I’m wasn’t quite correct there. From the Telecommunications Act, “carriage service” means a service for carrying communications by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy.

Deano 4:35 pm 14 Sep 08

In legislative terms, a “carriage service” is any type of telecommunications or postal service.

Loquaciousness 4:32 pm 14 Sep 08

Out of idle curiosity, what is a “carriage service” in this context? The only thing my brain will connect to the term is some type of Dickensian character who uses a horse and cart as a taxi, and I’m almost dead certain that’s not it.

L

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site