I thought children were supposed to be a blessing?

[vetran]

This.

the point I'm trying to make is why is the compensation so out of proportion to other 'awards'? Also why is she due it, what offence was committed except the officer being under cover and doing the dirty on her.

http://www.victimsupportsco.org.uk/l...TOKEN=94409097

Fatal injury award
If your parent, child, husband, wife or partner has died as the result
of a violent crime, we may be able to pay this type of compensation.
(This type of compensation is currently £11,000 if there is one person
claiming, or £5,500 each if there is more than one person claiming).
If you depended financially on the person who died, you may also be
able to claim compensation for this. We can also refund funeral
expenses to the person who has paid for the funeral.

so give her £10k and tell her she did well.

[vetran]

I am not sufficiently versed in the law as m'learned CUK colleagues, sadly.

However, since MPS have paid out, one of the three scenarios I suggest would have applied to their legal consultation. Unless I am mistaken and have missed some other scenario(s) that would have arisen.

If there was no crime, what reasoning do you think MPS applied in their decision to halt a legal challenge by paying out now?

so its a cover up?

[mudskipper]

the point I'm trying to make is why is the compensation so out of proportion to other 'awards'? Also why is she due it, what offence was committed except the officer being under cover and doing the dirty on her.

http://www.victimsupportsco.org.uk/l...TOKEN=94409097





so give her £10k and tell her she did well.

This maybe?

Sex By Deception | Complicity

Which other awards is it out of kilter with?

Where the state cocks up, awards are high. Wrongful imprisonment, medical negligence etc. This wasn't an accident. I imagine the award is designed to meet the cost of raising the child.

[DaveB]

what crime are you suggesting happened? There should be a fair amount of leeway for undercover officers in pursuit of their duty.

Having sex with someone where consent is obtained by fraud or deception is regarded as Rape.

Mr Justice Stephens had said (at p. 44):

...the only sorts of fraud which so far destroy the effect of a woman's consent as to convert a connection consented to in fact into a rape are frauds as to the nature of the act itself, or as to the identity of the person who does the act. Consent in such cases does not exist at all because the act consented to is not the act done.

Subsequent rulings in R V Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 and upheld in the House of Lords made clear that psychiatric injury could be regarded as Actual Bodily Harm being injuries within the scope of the Offences Against the Person Act. So even if there was no physical harm done, an offence has been committed if mental anguish or other injury has been inflicted as a result.

If the woman gave him cash or other goods at any point where she would not have done so had she known his real identity then a charge of Fraud could be brought.

I'm sure there are more.

I'm not saying she was blameless in other regards but in terms of this relationship, in the eyes of the law, she is the victim.

In cases where police operate undercover there will certainly be a whole slew of minor offences committed, certainly if you look at the fraud aspect, but these would generally be dismissed as not having sufficient weight to warrant prosecution. Having a sexual relationship and fathering a child as a result doesn't fall into that category.

[DodgyAgent]

While he was spying on her, and being paid to do so by the government. That adds a slightly different dimension IMO.

Quite

[vetran]

Quite

as I said he should have just introduced himself as the undercover cop that would have worked!

[TheFaQQer]

Having sex with someone where consent is obtained by fraud or deception is regarded as Rape.

Subsequent rulings in R V Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 and upheld in the House of Lords made clear that psychiatric injury could be regarded as Actual Bodily Harm being injuries within the scope of the Offences Against the Person Act. So even if there was no physical harm done, an offence has been committed if mental anguish or other injury has been inflicted as a result.

If the woman gave him cash or other goods at any point where she would not have done so had she known his real identity then a charge of Fraud could be brought.

I'm sure there are more.

You could even throw in WIlkinson v Downton and consider causing nervous shock by negligence (also Wainwright v Home Office, Janvier v Sweeney etc.)

In cases where police operate undercover there will certainly be a whole slew of minor offences committed, certainly if you look at the fraud aspect, but these would generally be dismissed as not having sufficient weight to warrant prosecution. Having a sexual relationship and fathering a child as a result doesn't fall into that category.

Generally, the penalty that the government faces outweighs the benefit of catching the criminal - for example, a terrorist has the right to claim for a breach to their human rights if the investigation which caught them went too far in collecting some of the evidence. So they get 40 years in jail, and £2k in compensation, which many would argue is a fair exchange.

[MaryPoppins]

as I said he should have just introduced himself as the undercover cop that would have worked!

Shagging around is one thing. Almost inevitable by your reasoning.

Having a long term relationship and a child with someone is a bit different, and doesn't appear to have formed part of his professional remit.

I wasn't commenting on the amount of money the woman was paid, simply on the morality of his actions.

[Pondlife]

It's one of the reasons why I've stayed away from any CUK meetups. Knowing that I'll inevitably have to sleep with someone and get them pregnant to prove I'm not a taxman.

[vetran]

Shagging around is one thing. Almost inevitable by your reasoning.

Having a long term relationship and a child with someone is a bit different, and doesn't appear to have formed part of his professional remit.

I wasn't commenting on the amount of money the woman was paid, simply on the morality of his actions.

I was commenting on the amount of the award,I have already suggested his actions were below the expected standard. I did ask how was he supposed to avoid some sort of romantic entanglement and stay credible in his undercover state.

But then we strayed into 'he was a filthy rapist territory' and comparing morality and law amongst normal people rather than trying on the shoes of people who spend their life being someone else to prevent your comfortable life being disrupted by terrorism.