Man found guilty of buggery in Wales

[Asympotically_fat]

@AK84

The CPS website still has guidelines on chargingfor buggery by the way.

As I explained early it’s for historic offences (i.e. offences taking place before the 2003 act was enacted).

[Siam_Sam]

@chromaticity

I thought I read that he was “guilty of buggering whales”.
I was preparing myself to be astounded by this man’s capabilities, and am feeling slightly let down now.
I know Costeau loved the sea, but that would have been something else.

Well, you know what they say: Buggerers can’t be choosers.

[Ludovic]

@Chronos

Quoth chromaticity:But the hedgehog cannot be buggered at all.

There once was a man from Rockall
Who once tried to just bugger all
Said he when he failed
I’ll stick to the whales
Cause I can’t bugger hedgehogs at all

[A.Gwilliam]

@Ludovic

There once was a man from Rockall
Who once tried to just bugger all
Said he when he failed
I’ll stick to the whales
Cause I can’t bugger hedgehogs at all

Rockall is subject to Scots law!

[Autolycus]

I skimmed this thread because I’m interested in human sexuality and the like, but for the life of me I can’t seem to figure out heads or tails on the question posed in the OP. Would somebody be so kind as to distinguish for me buggery from sodomy, and is it a crime?

[from_a_to_z]

Looking at The Crown Prosecution Service (“responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales”) web page for “Sexual Offences- Buggery and Gross Indecency” (link), per “Definition of buggery See section 12 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Archbold, 20-121).”

Per “Sexual Offences Act 1956” (link),
"Unnatural offences
12 Buggery.

(1)It is felony for a person to commit buggery with another person [F10otherwise than in the circumstances described in subsection (1A) [F11or (1AA)] below] or with an animal.

[F12(1A)The circumstances [F13first] referred to in subsection (1) are that the act of buggery takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of [F14sixteen].

[F15(1AA)The other circumstances so referred to are that the person is under the age of sixteen and the other person has attained that age.]

(1B)An act of buggery by one man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—

(a)when more than two persons take part or are present; or

(b)in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.

(1C)In any proceedings against a person for buggery with another person it shall be for the prosecutor to prove that the act of buggery took place otherwise than in private or that one of the parties to it had not attained the age of [F14sixteen].]"

The above may be an abridged version, Eliz2 rather than Archbold or whatever, but where in UK law is the actual definition? (No hurry on finding out, thanks just the same.)

[x-ray_vision]

@SciFiSam

But it’s not pedantry. If someone was convicted of sodomy in Seattle and someone else was convicted of buggery in Birmingham you need more information before you can be sure that their actual actions were very similar at all.

The same would apply if one was convicted of sodomy in Arkansas and another in Florida. Might as well say sodomy ≠ sodomy.

[A.Gwilliam]

from_a_to_z:
There’s no statutory definition of murder in English law, either! :p:D

There was an attempt in the nineteenth century to codify the whole of English criminal law, but it never came to anything (although I believe the draft code was used as the basis for codification in certain other countries).

The 1956 Act was a consolidation, not a codification, so it can only be understood in the context of the “unwritten” common law. Which means reference to sources that are almost certainly not going to be found freely available online.
However, there is a copy online of the 23rd (1905) edition of Archbold’s. Obviously this predates the 1956 Act, but I don’t think there is a substantive difference in the law. The relevant section is headed “Sodomy and Bestiality” and is at p. 921 (et seq).

The section begins with a recital of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, s. 61, which refers to a person being punished for “the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal”; in other words, the Act appears to define the punishment, and not the crime itself.

There then follows the form of indictment, which states in part that the accused

feloniously, wickedly, and against the order of nature, had a venereal affair with the said J. N., and then feloniously carnally knew him the said J. N., and then feloniously, wickedly, and against the order of nature, with the said J. N. did commit and perpetrate that detestable and abominable crime of buggery (not to be named among Christians)

Next follows notes concerning procedure, which include the following:

The offence consists in penetration per anum. R. v. Jacobs, R. & R. 331.

Also of note is the following:

Where the defendant forced open a child’s mouth, and put in his private parts, and proceeded to the completion of his lust, the judges were of opinion that this did not constitute the offence of sodomy. R. v. Jacobs, R. & R. 331 […].

Next follows the form of indictment for bestiality, which is in essence identical to the indictment for buggery with a person (except of course replacing references to a named person with references to the animal in question).

(After all this follows further notes relating to attempted sodomy, conspiracy, and so on.)

It would appear from the text as a whole that the correct name for the offence was “buggery”, the latter encompassing both “sodomy” (i.e. anal sex with a person) and “bestiality”.

[SciFiSam]

@x-ray_vision

The same would apply if one was convicted of sodomy in Arkansas and another in Florida. Might as well say sodomy ≠ sodomy.

True! In legal terms, the potential differences in the meaning of the term are so large that you’d need to look up the statutes to find out what was intended. And there aren’t many other modern, contexts other than the law where you’re going to come across the term.

[BigT]

It’s still pedantry. The real point was that Blake disparaged Whack-a-Mole, so the latter explained his reasoning. While you can debate the accuracy of his reasoning, you can’t debate the fact that that was what he was thinking, and that, thus, Blake’s accusation was improper.

[SciFiSam]

@BigT

It’s still pedantry. The real point was that Blake disparaged Whack-a-Mole, so the latter explained his reasoning. While you can debate the accuracy of his reasoning, you can’t debate the fact that that was what he was thinking, and that, thus, Blake’s accusation was improper.

The OP asked ‘is buggery the same as sodomy’ and saying ‘yes’ is not accurate. Well, unless you think that oral sex and bestiality are equal crimes; we don’t what what this man’s buggery charge actually was, but in Wales it could easily have been bestiality (and still no sheep-shagger jokes! Go us! :D), not oral sex, as in some of the US states where people could be (at least in the recent past) charged with sodomy.

That’s not pedantry, it’s answering a question posed in GQ.

It’s not really down to me whether Blake was disparaging Whack-A-Mole - I wasn’t exactly posting to back Blake up, was I?

[from_a_to_z]

@A.Gwilliam

from_a_to_z:
There’s no statutory definition of murder in English law, either! :p:D

There was an attempt in the nineteenth century to codify the whole of English criminal law, but it never came to anything (although I believe the draft code was used as the basis for codification in certain other countries)…

Thanks muchly A. Gwilliam for the detailed info. A topic for another thread, another time, could be the uses and effects of statutes that don’t define their crimes.

[Kobal2]

@BunnyTVS

There was however the case of the man accused of buffing a bottlenose.

I believe that should be boffing. Unless the man in question is a cleric. Then he could buff and boff, as it were.