tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post5187979029414031442..comments2023-06-29T12:07:43.973+01:00Comments on Program Your Own Mind 2: The curious case of Craig EvansAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-85844554161975919592012-09-29T14:36:39.096+01:002012-09-29T14:36:39.096+01:00I've been looking for more information on this...I've been looking for more information on this and have not found any so far. All subsequent reports seems to lead back to the Daily Mail, who reported that he intended to message his unnamed 'lover'. This is not mentioned in the judges' comments but has been repeated by each subsequent retelling.<br /><br />The offence of inciting sexual activity with a child is section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and clearly requires proof of intention. A judge could not have allowed the case to go to the jury if it was accepted it was an accident. The further step that he appealed, and still had the conviction upheld puts it further into the realm of 'there must be more to it than reported'.<br /><br />The only interpretation of this that makes sense so far to me is that he intended to message just the girls, or one of them, but acidentally sent the message to everyone, so was then caught. For the case to go to the jury, for him to be convicted, and for his conviciton to be upheld strongly suggests there was proof of that intent.<br /><br />If the story is as the DM reported it would involve the worst series of legal errors by judges in modern times.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14379881605741607452noreply@blogger.com