This is just plain creepy,
and utterly repellent!
A Christchurch dungeon owner ordered to serve nine months' home detention for injuring two teenagers in bondage and discipline sessions has had his convictions quashed on appeal and a new trial ordered.
In November last year, Richard Jeffrey Barker was convicted in Christchurch District Court on one count of injuring with intent to injure, and one of wounding with intent to injure.
He was acquitted on five counts of indecency.
The charges arose after the girls, aged 15 and 17, were scarred during a sadomasochism session in a dungeon at his suburban Linwood home in 2006.
Using a scalpel, Barker carved his pseudonym, Dragon, on to the shoulder of the 15-year-old and cut a design into the breast area of the 17-year-old girl while she was in bondage, the court was told.
Defence counsel Tim Fournier said the girls had given "fully informed consent" for what took place.
But Judge Kevin Phillips said Barker, in his 50s, could not use the defence of consent, principally because of the girls' young age but also because the scars would be semi-permanent and because the 17-year-old had taken nitrous oxide gas.
Barker appealed his convictions on the sole ground that Judge Phillips had wrongly withdrawn the defence of consent on public policy grounds.
In findings released today, Appeal Court Justices Susan Glazebrook, Grant Hammond and Mark O'Regan ruled that because Barker did not intend to seriously injure his victims, consent was available as a defence.
and utterly repellent!
Firstly, look at the punishment - nine months staying home - the place where he offended. And now he is arguing against even this.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, given one of the girls was 15, how can that be deemed consent? Where's the note from the parents?
Thirdly, why accept the word of a pervert when he says he did not intend to "seriously" injure? He just admitted he was there to injure a person under the influence of a drug. That's enough to make the charges stick.
This is just another example of people wanting to do wrong see no reason not to continue with this in the future. Next time perhaps he'll just hide the bodies.
I hope he gets fined court costs for wasting time on the appeal.
Funnily enough, there is no age of consent for violence. He did not engage in sexual acts per se.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there should be an age below which parental consent is needed for any piercing of the skin, except for emergency medical assistance.
It does show how the criminal law develops based on the trend of the times - which has been completely focused on sexual touching, and had little interest in children consenting to assault.
For example, what if kids entered a boxing match? What about kids play wrestling? Should it be simply that they can do whatever they like, but when it comes to adults there should be a presumption against consent?
I simply don't know. Which comes to my more fundamental belief that we need to treat ownership of the body as something that applies across the board.
Say at 16 and above people can consent to anything. Below that, should it be up to parents to set the rules (except parents can't say their kids consent to sex?).
It's worthy of debate.
He did not engage in sexual acts per se.I guess according to the letter of the law he did not.
ReplyDeleteBut does anybody doubt that this crime was not sexual in nature?
Isn't it a little alarming that deviant sexuality is so off the wall that we struggle to penalize it appropriately when a fifty-two year old pervert inflicts his perversions on minors
Utterly repellent indeed. Where the heck were the parents? What the hell are 2 children doing in a perverts dungeon?
ReplyDeleteI'm just baffled by the Court of Appeal retrial decision here. What do they mean that public policy aspects shouldn't eliminate consent as a defence? All laws are public policies...
ReplyDeleteIt may what LibertyScott referred to - is there a specific age of consent for force to be used on a child? For everything from this sadomasochism down to tattoos. I thought it was 18 (age of consent for contracts - you could argue that for a commercial tattoo, but a free tat?).
And isn't stupefying a child a crime?
I like the idea of broken skin requiring parental consent. The hidden barb is this would quietly criminalise underage abortions without parental consent. hehe. (or at least set up a court case over the conflicting laws).
The question does have to be asked about the parents awareness of where their kids were, though they may have trusted the adult....
He continues do what he considers to be very achieved work and skill in the local Christchurch BDSM community. His last performance being at the Christchurch 2010 FetishBall where he suspended his present partner up using rope and needles.
ReplyDeleteThis has since caused dispute in the local BDSM community with him threatening to bring legal defamation charges against any one who has an opinion against him or his actions.
He is an old man with thoughts of grandeur and still trying to bully and buy respect for his great skill and knowledge. ROFL
To all the girls he hurt before you deserve another financial pay out his assets are worth at least $3,000 all up, get in while you can.
I knew this guy when I was at university back in the 90's. He was sleezy then.
ReplyDelete