Definition, please

[DracoM]

In the newspapers, two men have been recently charged with 'child abduction' for allegedly 'abducting' 15 yr old girls.

Can someone clarify for me what the term 'abduction' means in law?

I laboured under the evident misapprehension that it means / implies taking away against the 'victim's' wishes. BUT it would appear in at least one of the cases that the 'victim' was very much acquiescent in the action.

So is it always assumed in law that U16 means that the person in question is unable to choose and thus must be a 'victim' and the 'abductor' always in the wrong? Are the relative ages of 'victim' and 'abductor' always the determining factor ?

[french frank]

Age I presume is a factor, since the 'child' is being abducted from the parent(s) without their permission.

In the newspapers, two men have been recently charged with 'child abduction' for allegedly 'abducting' 15 yr old girls.

Can someone clarify for me what the term 'abduction' means in law?

I laboured under the evident misapprehension that it means / implies taking away against the 'victim's' wishes. BUT it would appear in at least one of the cases that the 'victim' was very much acquiescent in the action.

So is it always assumed in law that U16 means that the person in question is unable to choose and thus must be a 'victim' and the 'abductor' always in the wrong? Are the relative ages of 'victim' and 'abductor' always the determining factor ?

[Pabmusic]

It's the Child Abduction Act 1984. The relevant section is:

Offence of abduction of child by other persons.

(1)[F1Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below.] commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—

(a)so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or

(b)so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.

[F2(2)The persons are—

(a)where the father and mother of the child in question were married to each other at the time of his birth, the child’s father and mother;

(b)where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at the time of his birth, the child’s mother; and

(c)any other person mentioned in section 1(2)(c) to (e) above.

(3)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for that person to prove—

(a)where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at the time of his birth—

(i)that he is the child’s father; or

(ii)that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed, on reasonable grounds, that he was the child’s father; or

(b)that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed that the child had attained the age of sixteen.]

[Serial_Apologist]

It's the Child Abduction Act 1984. The relevant section is:

Offence of abduction of child by other persons.

(1)[F1Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below.] commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—

(a)so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or

(b)so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.

[F2(2)The persons are—

(a)where the father and mother of the child in question were married to each other at the time of his birth, the child’s father and mother;

(b)where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at the time of his birth, the child’s mother; and

(c)any other person mentioned in section 1(2)(c) to (e) above.

(3)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for that person to prove—

(a)where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at the time of his birth—

(i)that he is the child’s father; or

(ii)that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed, on reasonable grounds, that he was the child’s father; or

(b)that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed that the child had attained the age of sixteen.]

[ardcarp]

The UK law is a mess in relation to 'age of consent' which I suppose has something to do with this. On the one hand, kids as young as 12...as I understand it....are permitted to seek contraception or pregnancy termination medication without their parents/carers being informed. On the other, girls of 15 who biologically are anything but kids, are probably triggering some sort offence if they have a carnal relationship with anyone, including boys of similar age. Then of course there's the anomaly of age of consent for 'gay' relationships. But I'm looking at this from the point of view of parents (or other carers) who are legally responsible for their charges but are battling against a society that has mixed and confusing values.

One wonders if Holland (where I gather the age of consent is 12) has got it right. Parents are much more open with their kids about sex and relationships, and the rate of teenage pregnancy is far lower.

[DracoM]

Interesting that the wording in the quoted statute always refers to a 'he'.
Or is that what statutes always do?

Completely endorse what I sense as a kind of bewildered frustration in ardcarp's posting. It's mine as well.

And what on EARTH does 'reasonable excuse' constitute?

[LeMartinPecheur]

Interesting that the wording in the quoted statute always refers to a 'he'.
Or is that what statutes always do?

Completely endorse what I sense as a kind of bewildered frustration in ardcarp's posting. It's mine as well.

And what on EARTH does 'reasonable excuse' constitute?

Legislation often refers to 'he' when it means 'he or she'. The Interpretation Act spells out something along the lines of 'The masculine shall include the feminine unless the context requires otherwise'. Often rendered as 'the masculine shall embrace the feminine...'

Reasonable excuse means what it says. One for lawyers to argue in each case where it's raised. This won't be all of them by any means. Often it's even not worth arguing that there was such an excuse. If it's raised, the magistrates or jury, as appropriate, decide whether what they've heard is or isn't reasonable. Case law inevitably clarifies the meaning in a particular statute sooner or later. Nonsensical or highly controversial decisions get appealed, thus generating case law. Lawyers earn their fees, or make extortionate profits, depending on your point of view

This is one way our legal system has the flexibility to adapt to new situations, technologies, attitudes, mores. That's the theory anyway.

[ardcarp]

Lawyers earn their fees, or make extortionate profits,

I'd like to be able to earn £350 per hour, an hour's work being whatever I care to define it as.

[Pabmusic]

The UK law is a mess in relation to 'age of consent' which I suppose has something to do with this. On the one hand, kids as young as 12...as I understand it....are permitted to seek contraception or pregnancy termination medication without their parents/carers being informed. On the other, girls of 15 who biologically are anything but kids, are probably triggering some sort offence if they have a carnal relationship with anyone, including boys of similar age. Then of course there's the anomaly of age of consent for 'gay' relationships. But I'm looking at this from the point of view of parents (or other carers) who are legally responsible for their charges but are battling against a society that has mixed and confusing values.

One wonders if Holland (where I gather the age of consent is 12) has got it right. Parents are much more open with their kids about sex and relationships, and the rate of teenage pregnancy is far lower.

I pottered around on Wikipedia, which seems to have a lot on this (!) and found that the Netherlands is 16, like us. It is thus one of the highest ages of consent in Europe. Lowest seems to be Spain (13). Most European countries are 15.

Most US states are 16, 17 or 18.

We were 12 (girl) and 14 (boy) until 1929. They could marry with consent from parents at those ages.

[ardcarp]

Netherlands is 16

Oops. Seem to have got that wrong!

[ardcarp]

...well not quite:

In Portugal and the Netherlands, teenagers between 12 and 16 can have consensual sex with their peers

This from a Guardian article, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/02/schools.uk

I know this is off topic, abduction being the original subject,but The Netherlands seems to be quite sensible in this respect, i.e. not criminalising young people.

[Pabmusic]

...well not quite:

In Portugal and the Netherlands, teenagers between 12 and 16 can have consensual sex with their peers

This from a Guardian article, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/02/schools.uk

I know this is off topic, abduction being the original subject,but The Netherlands seems to be quite sensible in this respect, i.e. not criminalising young people.

Well, that's a good thing in my view. We criminalise the kids and (because it's a sexual offence) it can cause real problems in later life.

[scottycelt]

As one who is equally concerned about the vital importance of accurate, generally-accepted word definitions I find myself in no little sympathy with the OP ...

I have scoured official dictionaries and cannot find any reference to "abduct" being a synonym for "elope".

Maybe the logic is indeed that the child is "stolen" from the parents? However, if that is true, when social services decide to remove a child from his/her under-performing parents could that then be described as "lawful abduction"?

[Pabmusic]

As one who is equally concerned about the vital importance of accurate, generally-accepted word definitions I find myself in no little sympathy with the OP ...

I have scoured official dictionaries and cannot find any reference to "abduct" being a synonym for "elope".

Maybe the logic is indeed that the child is "stolen" from the parents? However, if that is true, when social services decide to remove a child from his/her under-performing parents could that then be described as "lawful abduction"?

Here's the problem. Definitions change over time and (in this particular instance) according to context. And the context in this case is a particular act of Parliament. 'Abduct' means "takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen ... so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or ... so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child". Dictionaries don't enter into it.

[MrGongGong]

Dictionaries don't enter into it.

Scotty loves his
and finds his whole world is turned upside down when things seem to be at variance from what it says !