Talk:2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial

How many on trial?

I thought only the seven men on the island are being tried for now (see first sentence). The other six are to be tried separately next year [1].

Thank you for pointing that out:-)

Young?

Is that Edward Young link accurate? It looks like a different Edward Young. The one at that link died 25 years before the Bounty arrived at Pitcairn, and makes no mention of the HMS Bounty.

You're right. It's the wrong Edward Young. I've corrected the link; it now leads to a blank page, awaiting an article. David Cannon 02:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title

Is "rape" the accurate descriptor for the trials? The charges include indecent assault and other sexual offences, wouldn't "Pitcairn sexual assault trial(s?) of 2004" be more appropriate? Also the 2004 part is going to be inaccurate by the time the legal process (with respect to the authority of the British to try them in Pitcairn) is over...Psychobabble

if sexual assault isn't rape, then what is rape? If the it turns into the trial of 2004-2005, while it can be renamed at that point. --Eean 04:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rape is a type of sexual assault, not the other way around. Some states (eg. NSW) have even removed the word rape from the statute books.Psychobabble

The title defnitely needs to be changed - welcome to 2006! Probably better to remove the year altogether otherwise you're going to end up with "...trial of 2003-2006" Tobit 11:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nadine

No mention in this text of Nadine ; last year, news spread all over the world when she gave birth at Emily Rose, first birth on Pitcairn after 17 years when Meralda Warren was in distress getting a still child

Nadine, just before the trial (see google/news typing nadine pitcairn) gathered most of the wifes of those seven males to remind press about the fact that in most polynesian islands it was normal to have this kind of consensual sex. She also told journalists that large amounts of money were given for testimony. She concluded saying it was a conspiracy to empty the island.

Deleted sentence

Reportedly, he had raped a girl every time she had gone to gather firewood.

A vague hearsay, disguised by weasel term, "reportedly". I understand that he could have been spoken about in this way, but this phrasing looks miserably here. Mikkalai 22:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not. According to the New Zealand Herald, this was the conclusion of the court. I am reverting your edit. David Cannon 00:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then write it clearly. Did you happen to read the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms policy? I am reverting your revert. The language is inadmissible, especially in the cases related to court proceedings. Mikkalai 01:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't care much if this phrase were not an insult to the common sense. Think about it for a minute: this guy had nothing else to do but to watch this girl day and night; no fishing, no drinking, no screwing other teenagers, only to wait until she goes firewooding and jump her, and don't miss a single her trip... And now the article tell me that imprisonment of these guys will undermine the whole economy of the island. Come on! Mikkalai 01:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, if it were the conclusion of the court, then why he was indicted on so a small count of rape cases? Or this girl didn't need much firewood? You better be more critical to what you read in newspapers. Mikkalai 01:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of jumping in here, would a better way of phrasing it (which keeps the fact that it was the conclusion of the court and stops things from looking quite so weaselly) run something like:

He was found to have raped a girl every time she had gone to gather firewood [link to NZ Herald article goes here].

It's still passive voice, but since it was the view of the court then that much is probably going to have to stay. And before anyone says otherwise, it's been reported in the Courier-Mail here in Brisbane as well, an article link of which I'll try to find, so the view of the court seems to be being widely disseminated as such.

In relation to Mikkalai's other criticism, that these sentences will "undermine the whole economy of the island", the simple fact is that Pitcairn has a grand total of 47 people living on it, not all of whom are "able bodied" in the sense of being able to do work. The Christians are very strongly-built men who have been able to perform essential maintenance around the island for some time. It mightn't completely destroy the society, but major changes are going to have to happen.

BigHaz 04:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I could have done this myself, but I simply had no authentic data at hand. I will not object against your version, since it is stated in a verifiable way (source of the statement indicated), although I am still not convinced in the correctness of the statement (see my still another criticism). Mikkalai 05:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a shot, although I don't have access to either the NZ Herald link or (assuming there is one) a Courier-Mail one. I'll wait for Davidcannon to make the change, since he can presumably find the links somewhere about. BigHaz 10:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another Deletetion

I have deleted the reference to the Winterson story. Winterson's allegation is not supported by any references or attributions, nor is it corroborated or supported by any other sources. IMHO she made it up to add sensationalism - a journalist with any credibility doesn't make an assertion of that nature without backing it up.Tobit

Thoughts On The Article

A couple of thoughts:

1. Given the claim that this process will destroy their society, it would be helpful if we had some more demographic information for Pitcairn to enable readers to make their own judgements. (We don't have an article on Pitcairn demographics, but our Pitcairn island article notes that there has been only one birth in 17 years, an extremely low birth rate; are most of the remaining islanders elderly?)
2. The claim by one of the islander women (that females becoming sexually active at 12 or 13 is part of traditional Polynesian culture) ought to be referenced to information about Polynesian culture and sexuality.
3. Why is it that Kent, of all places, has policing responsibility in Pitcairn?

Securiger 07:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My responses (which are hardly authoritative, but they're a start at least)

1. I'm not completely certain what the demographics of Pitcairn are, but news reports (television news reports) tend to show a group of 30-40 year olds as being the younger men/women on the island. Any children are sent to boarding school and often don't come back. I'll try to hunt out anything I have on Pitcairn in the next couple of weeks, but I don't expect to find much. That said, I'll be on Norfolk Island over the New Year and might be able to pick up some info there. Delayed, but better late than never.

2. I agree. I'm not any kind of Polynesian culture person (at least, not in the native sense), but anyone out there who knows this sort of stuff should add it.

3. I think what's happened with the Kent police being out there is that Britain rotates who has to be the police representatives (since it's a colony) and it just happens to be Kent's turn to send people. Just a guess, so don't crucify me if I'm wrong.

BigHaz 10:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, BigHaz. I came across a very interesting and scholarly analysis of the matter which I have added to the external links section ("Pitcairn: A Contemporary Comment"), which has some more information on these questions.

1. Demographics: As at 1999, the population was 46 persons, consisting of 10 children under 16 years (children are compulsorily taken to New Zealand at 16, for high school), 17 men, and 19 women. The paper didn't have any information on the age distribution of the adults, but from Meralda Warren's web page [2] it would appear that most are at least in their mid forties. The CIA factbook says 12 "able-bodied" men.
2. The written legislation they had on the island at the time of the offenses (or alleged offenses) effectively specified the age of consent as being twelve years. (A substantial part of "Pitcairn: A Contemporary Comment" is discussing whether this is over-ruled by other legislation.) It is not clear if this is due to Polynesian custom or a holdover from earlier British law.
3. There was no police jurisdiction for Pitcairn. Gail Cox, the Kentish policewoman, was on the island to train Meralda Warren to become the island's first ever police officer.

Securiger 17:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for the culture thing, it's commonly mentioned in news articles on the subject and an Australian author familiar with the pacific has recently condemned the trials on the basis that they ignored the local culture [3]. Personally I think her statements are hidious and there were a few letters to the editor to the effect that her comments on the culture of underage sex in polynesia were not true. Psychobabble 23:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on what the policewoman was doing over there, Securiger. Makes a lot more sense now. BigHaz 01:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense? Does it really make sense that they would want to train as a POLICE OFFICER a creature like Meralda Warren, given that she has both practiced (by her own proud admission) and defended the so-called "cultural" tradition of underage sex on Pitcairn? David Cannon 09:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Umm, Meralda Warren became the island police officer before the sexual abuse investigation.

As for cultural tradition - I have still as yet found nothing concerning traditional Polynesian customs, although there's this about modern ones. But it seems clear that English customs have a part to play. At the time of the mutiny (1790), the age of consent in England was 12 for females and 14 for males, having been raised in 1753 (by "Hardwicke's Act") from - believe it or not! - seven (although actually marrying at such a young age was unheard of). See, for example, Eighteenth Century Fiction in Light of Contemporary Marriage Laws (PDF file). Under Hardwicke's Act lower class females could marry at 12 with parental consent or 20 without parental consent (the Act placed almost no restrictions on the nobility, and only easily circumvented ones on the middle classes). The requirement for parental consent before twenty was bitterly resented and a variety of loopholes were used to avoid it. This, you will note, is for marriage; in principle one could be fined for premarital sex, but in practice in the late eighteenth century, roughly one third of lower class brides were pregnant at their weddings. Overall the main impact of Harwicke's Act was to increase the proportion of illegitimate births tenfold, although the average age of marriage did gradually increase, and 13 year old brides had become rare by the 1820s. In the UK the age of consent for extramarital sex (as against marriage) was set at 16 by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, and then the age of consent for marriage was also raised to 16 by the Age of Marriage Act of 1929, but as mentioned above it remained 12 in Pitcairn Ordinances (pending legal arguments, etc.)

None of this is attempting to say that the offences were just eighteenth century customs misunderstood by twentieth century eyes - the charges included rape, after all. Securiger 16:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant that it "makes sense" in that it answers the obvious question (raised by Securiger) of "what was a policewoman from Kent doing on the other side of the world in a small community like Pitcairn. Regardless of any value judgements on Meralda Warren or the rest of the Pitcairnese, the fact that the Kentish officer was training a local police force (as such) makes more sense than my theory that it's a rotational thing with all the British counties. BigHaz 23:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Kent thing has something to do with that constablulary's ties to / respobsibility for overseas territories.Tobit 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Am i then only one who finds it strange that this article is bigger than the article on the picairn islands themselves?--Chickenfeed9 16:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For mine, it's more amusing than it is strange. Pitcairn doesn't really attract much press coverage and it's been one of my goals (although you may note that it's not one that's ever come close to being fulfilled) to spend some time with all the sources and expand the main article. One of these days, as they say. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Age of consent" definitely does not mean "age at which a forty year old man can have sex with her against her will." Hence "rape." The power structure with the Mayor demanding sex with a child means that any claim of consent would have to be more than the attacker's word about it. Edison 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't mean that, but it sounds as though the girls were willing, so unless force was used, I don't see that an age difference matters, since it's historically been this way in many cultures, European and Polynesian, where much older men marry younger girls. I don't know that I approve of girls this young having sex with older males, but I do accept that when people only lived into their twenties and thirties, as a rule, adult life started early and that Western values in this matter are very reminiscent of cultural imperialism and maybe even hypocrisy, considering that English laws at one time allowed children younger than teenagers to consent to intercourse. The important thing is that the UK should've made more effort to have made clear what was acceptable behavior in its territories and that it be clear going forward. Interestingly, Spain allows for age 13 as age of consent and many more EU countries allow for 14 years, including Germany and Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.242.83 (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The German law on age of consent that you referred to only applies to sex between two teenagers, not to sex between a teenager and an adult. An adult having (even) consensual sex with a 14 year old would get into legal trouble (there actually was a widely reported case like this that ended up in court). Nakonana (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

appeal

I think the appeal has just been denied. Guttlekraw 10:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Imprisoned

Where are the men held? Is it in a prison on Pitcairn? I vaguely remember something about them being enlisted to build cells during the trial. Nach0king 14:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears so. In this article they mention the cost of building jail cells, as well as other costs top $14m (this is in NZ$ I think.) Cost of Pitcairn justice tops $14m

The island, with a population of just 47, hosted a two-month trial in 2004. Jail cells had to be built, and bedding had to be shipped in for a judge, as did food for government representatives, the judiciary and media.

In another article also in Wed 19/4 Dominion Post, in the article "Britain seeks NZ guards for jail on Pitcairn", it mentions the Correction Dept. is recruiting 7 prison guards to "run a remote prison for convicted child abusers and rapists on Pitcairn Island". Apparently the guards will be working in 3-4 month shifts for 16 cycles. Soz, couldn't find a link for this one. :C

The article does not seem to state when any of them started or finished their incarceration, or where it was. Surely there is a source? Edison 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Judgment in April 2004

"In a judgement delivered on 18 April 2004, the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court (specially established for the purpose of the trial, consisting of New Zealand judges authorized by the British government) rejected the claim that Pitcairn was not British territory"

If the text refers to http://www.paclii.org/pn/cases/PNSC/2004/1.html , the judgment is dated 19th April, 2004. Apokrif 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Privy Council in July 2006

I'm not sure whether the Privy Council rejected the appeal or if it only rejected the argument that Pitcairners were not subject to British law. Apokrif 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6100310.stm for full information. The final judgment about sovereignty has now been issued, the men will all serve their sentences, so the article needs to be updated. It still talks about the Privy Council's decision in the future tense.Tobycek 15:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The final judgment is mentioned with a past verb: " The final appeals for all six men failed on October 30, 2006[8]." Apokrif 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Privy Council in 2004

"On October 12, 2004, the Privy Council agreed to hear the case" I only found a decision dated October 11 (see external links) Apokrif 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2002 British bill

"A bill was passed by the British Parliament in 2002 to allow a trial in New Zealand, based on Pitcairn law, to be held in 2004." I only found a 2002 New Zealand law: Pitcairn Trials Act Apokrif 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...underage sex had been accepted as a Polynesian tradition

"underage sex had been accepted as a Polynesian tradition" has a link which takes you to an "opinion" article, which has no reference or mention of this. Gurcanaral 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tense

Much of this is written in the present tense when it ought to be in the past, shouldn't it ? -- Beardo 07:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I went through the article and changed the tenses. Still needs more work, though. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The British apparently made up the court in school one day

...Why not use one of their own courts if it's a British colony? What's the point of making up a "Supreme Court" on the spot if it's only for one criminal case? — Rickyrab | Talk 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Rickyrab. Thanks for your contribution, but this page is designed for improving the article, not for discussing the legal status of Pitcairn. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are Pitcairn's "own" courts, which existed (in theory at last) before this trial. Apokrif (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thorough reworking needed . . .

May we have some assistance in trimming, cutting and rearranging the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004? The article was written piece by piece, almost day by day, during the trial and appeal, and it is not a unified, encyclopedic article. Kindly visit the page and detail on the Discussion page there what you think should be done and how you can help, if possible. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 08:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here. I watch this page as I do many Oceania-related pages, but while I will revert obvious vandalism, I don't have the time to do major copyedits to it. Please refactor and copyedit the article as you see fit.-gadfium 08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We all do whatever we can do, right? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kent detectives

A new article about the trial is at http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/New-Bond-commemorative-stamps-out-on-Tuesday--newsinkent8449.aspx?news=local. As noted above (and recognized) we are all volunteers, and I for one don't have the time right now to add any pertinent info to this article. Just a heads-up on this new stuff. (That is a weird name for this link, but it seems to work.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing red links

I'm taking out the red links on the basis that these defendants (or culprits, if you prefer) are not Notable. Links (blue ones) can be put back in if separate articles are ever written about these men. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pitcairn accused.jpeg

Image:Pitcairn accused.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How about some references?

This article is woefully undereferenced. There are large swathes of text that are completely lacking references and as such are just the point of view of the editor who wrote the stuff. In particular the Historical Background, The Local reaction, and the Timeline of the trial are almost devoid of references and yet there are things in there that people are supposed to have said or done which are very contentious and, if not true, libellous. Where did all this information come from? Surely there are newspaper articles or court transcripts that could be used as references? If I was to remove all the stuff that isn't referenced, which is what should be done, there would be nothing left of the article. That would be a shame because it's generally quite well written. I did think of adding fact tags, but again, there would be so many that the article would be unreadable. Could whoever wrote all that stuff please put some more references in? There seem to be quite a lot of newspaper articles on the subject, so when I gert time I'll see what references I can find. Richerman (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added quite a few now but there are a lot more needed. I found the references by pasting quotes, or other bits of text, into google - which shows that the editors who put it in got it from someone else's work. Please remember that if you are going to use work that someone else has written the least you can do is give them credit for it. Richerman (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian with maybe 20,000 edits or maybe more, I just want to say that the citation thing brings up a real weak point of Wikipedia. The Pitcairn Islanders do not have a citable newspaper, and their opinions are therefor nowhere to be found. I agree they can't just spill their POV into the article, but at the end of the day, we have a very POV British Government article. Difficult problem, which needs some thought and action from Wikipedians. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal objectivity

The use of quotation marks to soften or spin some statements here is onerous. For example:

"He had also confessed to having molested another 10-year-old girl during a tag game at a communal dinner (an incident he told the police had happened "accidentally")." Did he say it happened accidentally or didn't he? If so, why is his statement presented as figurative?

"...Brown told police that he had been "in love" with a 13-year-old girl..." Does being "in love" with someone have a unique meaning on Pitcairn, requiring quotes? Or is being "in love" in general like being abducted by aliens: extraordinary and unlikely?

The use of quotes around common words and phrases communicates doubt that isn't supported in the article. (No evidence is cited that that the touching wasn't accidental, or that Brown was not in love.)

Laodah (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

CAF Operation Unique

I don't know how to fix it, but the page on CAF Operation Unique in Goose Bay redirects here. It seems like some kind of mistake. 69.172.153.212 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the link. If an article is written on the Canadian operation, then it may be appropriate to change the redirect to point to it, or to convert it to a disambiguation page.-gadfium 07:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Title again

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the term "sexual assault" refers to the specific crime, precisely defined, of sexual touching without consent. The offence by this name did not exist under the Sexual Offences Act 1956; such conduct before 1 May 2004 would be prosecuted as "indecent assault" — I presume the conduct that constitutes it is defined at common law. Both are very broad offences, though the 2003 Act created several new offences (such as assault by penetration and possibly causing sexual activity) that would previously have been prosecuted as indecent assault. They can involve conduct as mild as touching below the knee through clothing (CPS charging guidelines give this example from R v Price [2003] All ER (D) 331). On the other hand rape is perhaps the third most serious offence in UK law, behind only treason and murder.

Of the seven Pitcairners accused:

• Five were convicted of rape
• Four were convicted of indecent assault
• According to the BBC, Dennis Christian was convicted of sexual assault, which would only have been possible after 1 May, but a Telegraph article gives the dates as the 1970s and 1980s.

This was clearly a rape trial. "Sexual assault" both is legally inaccurate and understates the seriousness of the charges. The arguments given above for labelling it a "sexual assault" trial are spurious: that the charges included other crimes does not stop it from having been a rape trial, and that "Some states (eg. NSW) have even removed the word rape from the statute books" is irrelevant, as English law was applied. In my opinion the article should be moved to either "Pitcairn rape trial of 2004" or "Pitcairn sexual abuse trial of 2004". Hairy Dude (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611050614/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/Pitcairn.rtf to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/Pitcairn.rtf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Appeals

Should the 2005 Supreme court proceedings really be listed in the Appeals section, i.e., is it an appeal (from what)? Apokrif (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I suggest splitting the timeline into a new article called Timeline of the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, as the timeline takes up the article, and makes it hard to see the rest. I think the timeline deserves it's own page due its length. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 04:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This article isn't large enough for a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom Christian

Paragraph 3 on the section titled Historical Background, claims that Tom Christian is the councilor who said "Look, the age of consent has always been twelve and it doesn't hurt them." However, the source article merely says "I tried to raise the subject at a meeting of the island council, and one gentleman replied: 'Look, the age of consent has always been 12 and it doesn't hurt them.'"

According to Tom Christian's NYT obituary "The defendants maintained that initiating girls into sex was a time-honored South Seas custom and that they were unaware that British law was in effect on Pitcairn. Mr. Christian, who was not implicated, publicly disputed the defendants’ contention, as did his wife."

If it can be proven that Tom Christan said that, then there needs to be a more reliable source linked. If not, the line shouldn't be attributed to him.

73.103.83.105 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)