What qualifies as &quot;violent&quot; and &quot;assault&quot;? I was reading the following news: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150719/local/update-3-veteran-actor-john-suda-charged-with-violent-indecent-assault.577272 Essentially a person is being charged in Malta with "committing violent indecent assault" for allegedly placing a blindfolded woman's hand on his genitals. How could this be considered "assault?" And how could it be considered "violent?"
The specific elements of the crime in question are going to be defined by Maltese law, which appears to be a blend of a European-style civil code with English-style common law. However, under ordinary Anglo-American standards, the alleged acts do seem to meet the legal definitions of these terms. At common law, an "assault" consists of placing someone in fear of an unwanted touching, and a "battery" is a completed assault; that is, an actual unwanted touching. If Mr. Suda, as alleged, took the victim's hand and touched it to his own genitals, without her consent, he committed an assault and battery. Any touching can constitute a battery, from a tap on the shoulder to a bullet in the head. Likewise, at common law, "violence" is any degree of physical force. If he tricked her into touching his genitals, that would not be a crime of violence; if he physically moved her hand to his genitals with his own hand, then he used physical force, or violence, to commit the crime. Again, what actually needs to be proven will depend on specifics you would need a Maltese lawyer to go into--but under general common law principles, neither "assault" not "violence" are particularly surprising.
There's always civil action possible; &quot;assault and battery&quot; has a civil variant as an &quot;intentional tort&quot; Civil assault and battery are torts. A tort is a wrong committed by one person against another, causing damage. Specifically, civil assault and battery are intentional torts. [...] Intentional torts are torts that are committed on purpose. In addition to assault and battery, causes of action such as false imprisonment, slander, and fraud typically fall under this category. While the requirements of duty, breach, causation and damages are the same, the added element of the tortfeasor’s intent is taken into consideration as well. If a plaintiff cannot prove that the tort was committed intentionally, it may be a case of negligence as opposed to an intentional tort.
Short Answer No. This is not legal under Virginia law. It is a serious crime. Long Answer The basic reasoning This would be actionable as aggravated sexual battery and punishable by up to 20 years in prison, because the facts demonstrate a touching of intimate parts with an intent to molest (i.e. sexual abuse) and this is accomplished through the victim's physical helplessness, which includes being unconscious at the time for any reason. Intent to Molest, Gratify or Arouse Contrary to user6726, I don't think that groping in the factual context of the question can be reasonably interpreted as lacking an intent to molest under the statute. An interpretation that requires an effect on the victim would be contrary to the fact that the statute is talking about the intent of the perpetrator and to the fact that the statute expressly authorizes prosecutions in cases where the victim is physically helpless a definition that includes unconscious or drugged. One could probably get the court to provide an extra non-standard jury instruction if this was raised by the defense at trial as an issue. The intent to molest, gratify or arouse intent requirement is designed to distinguish between, for example, giving a sponge bath to an unconscious patient at a medical facility or by a family member, or touching someone's breasts in order to get a bra size for a tailor, and &quot;groping.&quot; The intent requirement also excludes unintentional conduct such as slipping and falling into someone by accident. The admission by the perpetrator in the question doesn't suggest any possible non-sexual reason for the contact, and is inconsistent with unintentional conduct. Corroboration From Actual Recent Prosecutions This reading is consistent with the fact that Virginia prosecutors have brought charges in similar circumstances such as the rape of an unconscious woman at a house party and charges against a Virginia DJ for his conduct towards unconscious women. The only material difference between rape and aggravated sexual battery under Virginia law is that rape requires penetration, while sexual battery merely requires sexual contact. Additional Commentary Reaching this conclusion is a bit tricky, because usually aggravated sexual battery would have a narrower definition of the crime than &quot;plain vanilla&quot; sexual battery. But, in Virginia, there is conduct that constitutes aggravated sexual battery which does not constitute &quot;plain vanilla&quot; sexual battery, including molestation by accomplished through physical helplessness which is defined broadly in the relevant statute. In other words, in this fact pattern, &quot;sexual battery&quot; is not a lesser included offense of &quot;aggravated sexual battery&quot; under subsection A(2) of § 18.2-67.3 of Virginia's statutes. Plain vanilla sexual battery includes the circumstances of subsection A(4) of § 18.2-67.3 of Virginia's statutes and some special &quot;statutory rape&quot;/&quot;position of trust&quot; type conduct that is outside of the scope of both A(4) type conduct and aggravated sexual battery generally. I would attribute the statements of the investigator as symptom of poor training about sexual assault cases and a generally regressive state of law enforcement attitudes about sexual assault in Virginia. Your friend should insist on talking to the investigator's supervisor and reviewing the relevant legal citations, with a lawyer, if necessary, if she wants to press charges. Of course, the prosecutor has no obligation to prosecute the case even if the prosecutor had a videotaped confession to every element of the crime. But, there is no reason for a prosecution to be prevented due to a non-lawyer investigator's misunderstanding of the law. A letter of complaint to the investigator's supervisor or the head of the department or the politician to whom the department reports would also be in order. The Statutes The statute creating the crime is as follows, with all of the pertinent language in bold. I have put the word &quot;or&quot; when necessary to see how the statute fits together (which could be omitted in a block quotation showing omissions with &quot;. . .&quot;) in italics and have left the remainder of the relevant statutes in plain text to allow a reader to confirm that the reading I am giving to the statute is correct. § 18.2-67.3. Aggravated sexual battery; penalty. A. An accused shall be guilty of aggravated sexual battery if he or she sexually abuses the complaining witness, and The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age, or The act is accomplished through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness, or The offense is committed by a parent, step-parent, grandparent, or step-grandparent and the complaining witness is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age, or The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness by force, threat or intimidation, and a. The complaining witness is at least 13 but less than 15 years of age, or b. The accused causes serious bodily or mental injury to the complaining witness, or c. The accused uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon. B. Aggravated sexual battery is a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for a term of not less than one nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $100,000. This in interpreted in light of some key definitions: § 18.2-67.10. General definitions. As used in this article: &quot;Complaining witness&quot; means the person alleged to have been subjected to rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, marital sexual assault, aggravated sexual battery, or sexual battery. &quot;Intimate parts&quot; means the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, or buttocks of any person. &quot;Mental incapacity&quot; means that condition of the complaining witness existing at the time of an offense under this article which prevents the complaining witness from understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act involved in such offense and about which the accused knew or should have known. &quot;Physical helplessness&quot; means unconsciousness or any other condition existing at the time of an offense under this article which otherwise rendered the complaining witness physically unable to communicate an unwillingness to act and about which the accused knew or should have known. The complaining witness's &quot;prior sexual conduct&quot; means any sexual conduct on the part of the complaining witness which took place before the conclusion of the trial, excluding the conduct involved in the offense alleged under this article. &quot;Sexual abuse&quot; means an act committed with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where: a. The accused intentionally touches the complaining witness's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; b. The accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; c. If the complaining witness is under the age of 13, the accused causes or assists the complaining witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; or d. The accused forces another person to touch the complaining witness's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts. Also relevant is this statute: § 18.2-67.6. Proof of physical resistance not required. The Commonwealth need not demonstrate that the complaining witness cried out or physically resisted the accused in order to convict the accused of an offense under this article, but the absence of such resistance may be considered when relevant to show that the act alleged was not against the will of the complaining witness.
In NSW Australia this is covered by Division 15A of the Crimes Act 1900 which deals with Child Abuse Material. Under Section 91FA a &quot;child&quot; means a person who is under the age of 16 years - the situation you describe would be between consenting adults in NSW. “Child abuse material” can be text or images that are sexually explicit and would be “offensive” to a normal person (which means offensive to the particular jury) Assuming Jane is 15 or less, however, prima facie the image would be child abuse material and under Section 91H &quot;A person who produces, disseminates or possesses child abuse material is guilty of an offence.&quot; The punishment is up to 10 years in jail. Section 91H provides a number of defences, the most relevant to the circumstances you describe being: that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that he or she produced, disseminated or possessed (as the case requires) child abuse material. that the material concerned came into the defendant’s possession unsolicited and the defendant, as soon as he or she became aware of its nature, took reasonable steps to get rid of it. (for possession only) If, considering all the circumstances of the relationship, Joe doesn't know and could not reasonably be expected to know Jane's age then he can use the defence under S91H(1). If he did not request the picture and as soon as he was aware of Jane's age, deleted it, then he can use the defence under S91H(2). The outcome is not so rosy for Jane: she is guilty of both production and dissemination of child abuse material and (assuming she knows how old she is) faces up to 10 years in jail (14 if she is under 14) and registration on the Sex Offenders List for life. It is admittedly unlikely in the circumstances that the state would prosecute her and, if they did, it is very likely that the judge would rule that no conviction be recorded.
No, it's not legal. This is the tort of assault, not to be confused with criminal assault. A tort of assault does not require actual contact, whereas some jurisdictions define criminal assault elements as those of battery; in others, it is an intended battery without the contact. The elements of common law assault are: A positive, voluntary act You can't do this accidentally or negligently That intentionally causes reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff The person must reasonably apprehend contact. However, this is a subjective standard. If the plaintiff does not apprehend contact, then this element is not satisfied. Additionally, while words alone are rarely enough to satisfy this element, words in a certain tone, or with certain actions, may be. Also, verbal threats are not required for this element. Of immediate You can't assault someone by threatening them with something that'll happen in the future, if it's distant enough. Whether this is distant enough is decided on a case-by-case basis. Unlawful contact The contact needs to be unlawful and harmful. In the situation you describe, a civil action in assault would have all requirements fulfilled. You might also succeed in pressing criminal charges, depending on the jurisdiction concerned. Police officers generally have the power to maintain the peace, and an assault is most definitely a breach of the peace. Again, depending on the jurisdiction, they may have the power to detain them, or to ask them to move along, for example.
The maximum sentence for any offense in Portugal is 25 years under Article 41 of the Penal Code of Portugal (PCC). Article 152 of the PCC provides that domestic violence is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Articles 163-174 of the PCC set forth penalties for a variety of sex offenses (incidentally, &quot;rapto&quot; is a false friend in Portuguese which looked like &quot;rape&quot; in English but means &quot;kidnapping&quot; or more literally &quot;abduction&quot; in Portuguese). The most severe penalty available for any of these sex offenses (assuming it is not a aggravating factor of another crime with a more severe penalty like murder or kidnapping) is six years in prison. Most sex offenses in Portugal are punishable by not more than five years in prison. There are punishments in addition to imprisonment that can be imposed in many cases, but the question asks only about prison sentences. The minimum sentences are not meaningful because alternative sentencing options exist.
It depends, in part, what is meant (and what can be proven) by D's intent: no apparent motivation to harm V Revenge porn, or more accurately, &quot;Disclosing, or threatening to disclose, private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress&quot; contrary to section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which states: (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person discloses, or threatens to disclose, a private sexual photograph or film in which another individual (“the relevant individual”) appears, (b)by so doing, the person intends to cause distress to that individual, and (c)the disclosure is, or would be, made without the consent of that individual. If there is no intent, then the offence is not committed. If there is intent to cause distressto V, then setion 35 needs to be considered, especially subsection (2): Meaning of “private” and “sexual” (1)The following apply for the purposes of section 33. (2)A photograph or film is “private” if it shows something that is not of a kind ordinarily seen in public. (3)A photograph or film is “sexual” if— (a)it shows all or part of an individual's exposed genitals or pubic area, (b)it shows something that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature, or (c)its content, taken as a whole, is such that a reasonable person would consider it to be sexual. I cannot find and caselaw or guidance on the particular issue - i.e. whether or not V's commercial sales of her own images would fall within this definition - and as D's intent is not clear, it would probably be a matter for a jury to decide.
(Note that some of the below may be UK specific, but the general principle applies in many other jurisdictions) Well the first thing is to stop working from this from the wrong direction: There is no law that makes it legal to assault someone: the law only makes it illegal to assault someone (eg in the UK, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 apply). The law states that it is illegal to assault someone. So let's explore how sport works. In most legal systems, you are able to give consent for certain activities or risks. This is also why certain other activities (for example, things a couple may enjoy in their own home) are not necessarily assault if consented to. Essentially, therefore, your consent gives the person doing the hitting the legal excuse (a little different to a normal excuse for forgetting your homework or being late to work): or a defense that their actions were reasonable. This stops the issue being the law, therefore, and becomes an issue of what does/doesn't constitute an "excuse". It is not therefore a question of "What law allows you to commit a crime during sport?" instead it is really one of "Exactly how much consent can a person give, to allow consent to be used as an excuse, and at what point is that consent no longer an excuse?" For example in R v Brown (UK Case Law) it was established that you cannot give unlimited consent. Similarly in every jurisdiction I'm aware of, that consent is only able to be given within the realms of the rules of the sport. As soon as the rules are broken, a crime may have been committed. I won't go into the details of R v Brown here, as I'm not convinced that it's suitable for SE (although I'm sure you can find it), but to give a more sport-related example, R v Donovan established that No person can license another to commit a crime, if (the jury) were satisfied that the blows struck ... were likely or intended to do bodily harm ... they ought to convict ... only if they were not so satisfied (was it) necessary to consider the further question whether the prosecution had negatived consent. Again, similar case law or exemptions exist in most jurisdictions. Essentially what this establishes is that if the intent is to cause harm, rather than to undertake the sport or activity to which consent has been given, it is still a crime The question after this is then generally one of whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, and often (but not always) the victim's wishes are taken into account. In some cases, the sportsman is prosecuted: for example this British football player who assaulted an opponent. In other cases there is either insufficient evidence, or insufficient interest in the prosecution. In many cases where the rules are broken but no serious harm is done, for example where rules are broken accidentally or in a minor way, the police or prosecution service (or equivalent) may simply regard the matter as sufficiently dealt with. This is the same as with most other cases, where not every instance of assault is necessarily prosecuted: two teenage brothers fighting may not result in a prosecution, or an assault in the street may not carry enough evidence. And to indirectly answer the question - the reason players are often not prosecuted is because "In the public interest" incorporates an element of public opinion. If a certain action has become (or always been seen as) acceptable, it is unlikely to be prosecuted. For example minor fouls in games, or accidental fouls causing injuries. The other primary reason is that the victim chooses not to press charges (although this isn't required, and the police are able to press charges themselves, it is often taken into account)