QLD Criminal Law - Why was Man Charged with Incest?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Oneman

Well-Known Member
7 September 2017
65
4
199
Hi All.

Could I ask a question about the crime of incest?

In a recent Qld case, a male person was charged with r**e (Sec 347 Qld C.C) and incest (Sec 222 Qld C.C.) of a minor female who was fostered by his parents. I don’t think she was adopted which would make her his step-sister.

As she was only a foster child living at his residence and he wasn’t a ‘parent’ how could he have been charged with incest and r**e under criminal law?

Just curious.

Thanks,
 

Adam1user

Well-Known Member
5 January 2018
577
33
2,219
I am not sure but the relationship defines it, as there is a legal relationship (bother - step sister) then is will fall under incest and if she was under the legal age, then it is statutory r**e.

If I'm wrong, someone will write the correct thing.
 

Oneman

Well-Known Member
7 September 2017
65
4
199
I am not sure but the relationship defines it, as there is a legal relationship (bother - step sister) then is will fall under incest and if she was under the legal age, then it is statutory r**e.
If I'm wrong, someone will write the correct thing.
I am not sure but the relationship defines it, as there is a legal relationship (bother - step sister) then is will fall under incest and if she was under the legal age, then it is statutory r**e.
If I'm wrong, someone will write the correct thing.
Thanks Adam.
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
I believe I know the case you're referring to.

Incest is more than parent to child. It goes out a little further than that, and is not restricted to 'bloodline'.

Per section 222 (Incest) of the Queensland Criminal Code:

"(1) Any person who ... has carnal knowledge with or of the person's ... sibling ... and .. knows that the other person bears that relationship to him ... commits a crime.
...
(5) A reference in this section to ... a sibling ... includes a relationship of that type that is a ... step relationship.

(6) For subsection (5), a reference to a step relationship includes a relationship corresponding to a step relationship arising ... because of a foster relationship or a legal arrangement
."

The offence of r**e bounces around a little bit more.

r**e is covered in section 349 of the Criminal Code. This section provides that a child under the age of 12 is incapable of giving consent. Section 215 provides that "carnal knowledge" of a child under 16 is illegal (meaning that 16 is the age of consent). Regardless of this, section 348 provides that consent must be freely and voluntarily given by a person with cognitive capacity; and that it is not freely and voluntarily given in certain instances (like where it is obtained by force, threat, intimidation, fraud, mistake etc).
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney

Adam1user

Well-Known Member
5 January 2018
577
33
2,219
If you're not sure you're right, why even post?

Tim I provided an answer as no one did, I used common sense and it was correct, See Rob's answer and he is a lawyer, his answer is the same as mine but with the legal authority.

Why did you ask this question? what is the objective of your question? What is it of your concern? Did you answer Oneman's question in your post?

I provide my answers, and I am not afraid to state if I am wrong. So I will count to 20, just respect to someone (hopefully he will read this).
 

Adam1user

Well-Known Member
5 January 2018
577
33
2,219
I believe I know the case you're referring to.

Incest is more than parent to child. It goes out a little further than that, and is not restricted to 'bloodline'.

Per section 222 (Incest) of the Queensland Criminal Code:

"(1) Any person who ... has carnal knowledge with or of the person's ... sibling ... and .. knows that the other person bears that relationship to him ... commits a crime.

(5) A reference in this section to ... a sibling ... includes a relationship of that type that is a ... step relationship.

(6) For subsection (5), a reference to a step relationship includes a relationship corresponding to a step relationship arising ... because of a foster relationship or a legal arrangement
."

The offence of r**e bounces around a little bit more.

r**e is covered in section 349 of the Criminal Code. This section provides that a child under the age of 12 is incapable of giving consent. Section 215 provides that "carnal knowledge" of a child under 16 is illegal (meaning that 16 is the age of consent). Regardless of this, section 348 provides that consent must be freely and voluntarily given by a person with cognitive capacity; and that it is not freely and voluntarily given in certain instances (like where it is obtained by force, threat, intimidation, fraud, mistake etc).

Hi Rob,

Where is your comment regarding Tim's comment or can you clarify his post to me: what is the objective of his comment? what is his concern regarding my comment? Did he answer Oneman's comment? or even provide any help or assistance? Now you know why I answer the way I do.

You interfered twice when I replied to Tim's comments or posts, and long posts too, did you both work together? or are you both friends? I don't mind, but if you are, but you need to be objective too. Especially if you are a lawyer, I think this is one key element in being a lawyer, right?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
I'm sorry, am I on the clock here? I don't seem to have funds in trust... 'Where my comment is' is that I'm working on preparing for an upcoming tribunal hearing I have this week and I haven't had any time to post on here.

I can't clarify Tim's post, it's his post not mine. Perhaps it is an honest question and he's awaiting your answer. Perhaps he was simply stirring the pot to see if it would get a rise out of you. I don't know what his concern is. No, he didn't answer Oneman, but I don't see that he was under any obligation to do so.

Interfered? This is an open discussion forum without heavy moderation. Do you seek to censor my ability to speak my mind? For the record, we don't work together. I don't know Tim in any capacity beyond out interactions on this board. The only thing I'm pretty sure of about Tim is that his surname has more letters than just 'W' (but I could be wrong).

The ability to think objectively is an important aspect of being a lawyer. And I'm pretty sure I am being reasonably objective. I won't deny that there's a dose of professional courtesy thrown in, but that's more about safeguarding the reputation of the profession than anything personal. I don't need to protect Tim, I expect he's more than capable of doing that himself. You tend to get chewed up and spat out in this profession unless you have some fortitude about you.
 

Adam1user

Well-Known Member
5 January 2018
577
33
2,219
I'm sorry, am I on the clock here? I don't seem to have funds in trust... 'Where my comment is' is that I'm working on preparing for an upcoming tribunal hearing I have this week and I haven't had any time to post on here.

I can't clarify Tim's post, it's his post not mine. Perhaps it is an honest question and he's awaiting your answer. Perhaps he was simply stirring the pot to see if it would get a rise out of you. I don't know what his concern is. No, he didn't answer Oneman, but I don't see that he was under any obligation to do so.

Interfered? This is an open discussion forum without heavy moderation. Do you seek to censor my ability to speak my mind? For the record, we don't work together. I don't know Tim in any capacity beyond out interactions on this board. The only thing I'm pretty sure of about Tim is that his surname has more letters than just 'W' (but I could be wrong).

The ability to think objectively is an important aspect of being a lawyer. And I'm pretty sure I am being reasonably objective. I won't deny that there's a dose of professional courtesy thrown in, but that's more about safeguarding the reputation of the profession than anything personal. I don't need to protect Tim, I expect he's more than capable of doing that himself. You tend to get chewed up and spat out in this profession unless you have some fortitude about you.

I am not trying to stir anything and I doubt Tim's post was actually an honest question, if you read all his comments/posts it should give an indication of his attitude. He had negative attitude from my initial post, this is what fired me up, even when I was straight forward, no need to bring it up again (but you know which post I am referring to), and in that post and the other post you gave professional courtesy and I think you were not aware of the history.

I did let it go, believe me, I am not a child and I am mature but sometimes you have to deal with someone with the same attitude, if you want his full name, or his posts, go to his profile page and read (and mine too), that should give you the history. I was not attacking you, but drawing your attention to that point that I raised previously.

I agree with you, this is a forum to post your opinions and I also learn from here, example from reading your comments/posts and others. This is a good forum and it should stay that way.
 

AllForHer

Well-Known Member
23 July 2014
3,664
684
2,894
Tim is trolling you and you're taking the bait with astonishing finesse.

By the way, you weren't right in the thread that led to this popcorn-worthy to-and-fro. You were a lucky beneficiary of judicial discretion. Congratulations.