Talk:2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial

message: 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)
thread_title:  Young? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Imprisoned

message: "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)
thread_title:  Judgment in April 2004 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Privy Council in July 2006 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Privy Council in 2004 

message: "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)
thread_title:  2002 British bill 

message: "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)
thread_title:  ...underage sex had been accepted as a Polynesian tradition 

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

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The British apparently made up the court in school one day

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thorough reworking needed . . .  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kent detectives  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing red links 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pitcairn accused.jpeg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How about some references? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legal objectivity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CAF Operation Unique

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title again 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appeals 

message: 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)
replies: text: This article isn't large enough for a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tom Christian