Is Mise,
Your posts are usually much more practical, so I was a little surprised that this time you appeared ignorant of the reason for us having an 'age of consent' law of 16 years.

It is deemed that younger people are not mature enough to make such decisions and that they must be protected from older predators. So sex with a younger person is deemed rape, whether the younger person agrees or not.

You may also note that she told him she was 15 and that the judge did not believe the man who claimed ignorance as he had been here 3 years. Also that the man enticed the girl for the photos. It is termed grooming. Despite this he was only given a suspended sentence.

Most people agree with our age of consent laws, it is only the Greens that advocate lowering the age to give predators more access to our kids.

In practical terms there is no "on-off " switch in sentencing. A 15 yr old girl would be months away from 16 and able to comprehend photo sessions with a man. Kids of that age are well able to complain of sex abuse , 5 year olds can. These days with mobiles it's all out there for kids.

I'm not convinced Banjo needs to compare the outcomes of Non-Muslim or immigrant cases with Muslim or immigrant cases to establish whether or not they are shown leniency.

If a magistrate or judge makes a statement in his sentencing that he 'accepts the accused suffers lower opportunities and/or increased hardship in assimilation' or something to that effect does that in itself not establish leniency?

But then does it not also create a dilemma?
That not taking those factors into account in sentencing would also seen as a form of discrimination?

A fine line...
You may be right about the leniency Banjo, but I'm not sure you're going to win the battle.
I certainly support your efforts to keep an eye on it though.

Foxy,
In nearly 25 years not much has changed in regards to the 'pendulum swing of justice' when it comes to: (1) female offenders,(2) female offenders from overseas countries, (3) female offenders who are "Permanent Residents" e.g. having become so by marrying an Australian Citizen.

The only change of note is that a PR, who today commits a crime attracting a sentence of more than 1 year in custody (that's full time prison) - not Periodic Detention or a reduced sentence via inducements/deals with the police involved, the Immigration Department or any other government agency - that offender will usually be deported back to their country of origin.

The Domestic Violence Industry, run as it has been by the misandrist, hairy armpit brigade - hell bent on creating more and more man hating females, with an agenda we see in the droning mantra of "men are the perpetrators". All of which does nothing for the children involved. Given the proliferation of private firearms ownership has dropped per capita in that time, why do we see an increase in the number of female partners/spouses killed over that same period ? Is it time to enact a national registry of kitchen knife ownership, and bring in a restricted category for semi-automatic knives, as was done with firearms post Port Arthur Massacre ?

We see instead, more and more concocted statistics which ignore, at great peril to the children involved, to justify Wimmins Rights, 'Wimmins this and Wimmins that'...all funded by the taxpayer. To that end, the availability of "refuges, shelters and emergency accommodation for male victims" (of domestic violence) has not kept up with the actual realities of Australian society today. The courts perpetuate this emasculation.

In 1993 my then Permanent Resident wife was arrested on charges of: Malicious Damage, Assault, Grievous Bodily Harm and Threatening to Kill, after which she was promptly released on bail to clean out our matrimonial home of all goods and chattels with assistance from 'sisters' at the Marcia Womens Refuge at Campbelltown.

Dear Albie,

Research in Australia suggests that women in Australia
who have been born in other countries or who identify
strongly with other cultures through language, custom,
and religion are even more likely to experience violence
and abuse.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/refugee-trauma-linked-to-domestic-violence/news-story/f18fda946060328eb94ff3b47933c4f7

This is a very interesting topic that seems to have generated various views and opinions? And I really can't say whether those people from other countries receive more lenient treatment from the judiciary then others, who're native to this country ?

There are several matters however that do cause me, and many of my former police colleagues, some substantial degree of trepidation and angst. That do clearly fall within the purview of the judiciary itself. That is the relatively lenient sentences that have been, and continue to be, passed down right across the entire spectrum of the criminal justice system, particularly for those abominable crimes, perpetrated against young children and other victims.

And the inordinately ridiculous Bail Laws that are currently imposed by the Magistracy in the lower Courts. Which in many instances simply means cutting loose hardened criminals, in order they may continue to roam the streets like malevolent predators looking for further hapless prey.

One colleague asks another '...didn't we lockup that bloke last night for 'glassing' his girlfriend, doing him for one count of 'malicious wounding'...' his response, '...sure, but he made bail...'? What a positively friggin' joke eh ! As the two coppers scurry away in shame lest the crook sees 'em and laughs at their legal impotence !