ages of consent - or not

[didds]

Had a rather bizarre disussion last night with someone whose knowledge etc I respect... this is a bit rambling so ill try and explain as succinctly as possible

We were discussing certain royals and how they may have ended up where they are when my chum dropped into the confersation that whilst the age of consent for felamles in the UK is 16, case law (he kept banging on about highly paid lawyers getting results) now says if you are not yet 18 your 16/17 year olds ocnsent isnt really consent if with a much older male. He claimed 16 year old with a 19 year old is "fine" but 17 year old with a 50 year old woiuld not be.

I expressed my surprise saying that Id not heard anything about this at all - he replied that its becasue all the girls it happs too and this(case) law gets used for (by rich daddies paying highly paid lawyers etc) dont get in the press/media because they are under 18 so cant be reported. To which I replied surely that is the point of calling the female Miss X rather than Sharon Bloggins etc etc.

I then suggested though this if this was the situation, then that legal precedent (that consent at 16 not being real consent until 18 if with somebody substantially older than them) coud thus be applied to military service - a 17 year old could be sent to a battle front by a 40 year old officer and killed, but as they are not yet 18 that would not be real consent and so sch a 17 year olds rich daddy could use highly paid lawyers to push that point (for compensation). Chum then got very defensive saying "the law" doesnt work that way - I retorted that in my admittedly very limited understanding of English law (1979 British Government O-Level ) such a precendent is exactly that - it doesdnt come ringfenced necessarily.

It also struck me that aside form _maybe_ private prosecutions (rich daddies etc ^^ ) surely such cases of statutory rape would be criminal trials and nothing to do with rich daddies paying expesnive lawyers to pursue a point?

Chum also claimed there were no 16 year old prostitutes serrvicing 50 year old clients - Im not convinced oif that! (Ive no experience I should hasten to add!)

So - learned friends...

* is this really true? ie female age of consent is somewhat flexible between 16-18 years dependant on the age of the male particpant?
* that case law (if true) is not transferable between sexual alleged crimes and military service or other arenas?
* statutory rape trials under such a ruling would never be reported becasue the female is a minor even with anonymised names?

mandatory caveats : this is no more than extended pub banter,. neither of us is lookig to find a loophole to exploit, or to have to cover etc etc etc !!!

didds

[swill453]

I think he's got the right idea but the wrong ages. For a child below 16 it makes a difference whether the other party is over 18, with the offence being more severe if they are.

But the legal age of consent is definitely 16.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory ... ed_Kingdom

Scott.

[Lanark]

In English law:
The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.
https://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex
but
It is an offence for a person aged 18 or over to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 if the older person holds a position of trust (for example a teacher or social worker) as such sexual activity is an abuse of the position of trust.

Not every person holds a position of trust, but I imagine a 40 year old employer with a 17 year old employee would be skating on very thin ice.

[didds]

I think he's got the right idea but the wrong ages. For a child below 16 it makes a difference whether the other party is over 18, with the offence being more severe if they are.

But the legal age of consent is definitely 16.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory ... ed_Kingdom

Scott.

which is exactly how I understood it Scott, indeed.

He did agree that below 16 is a total no-no, albeit the law is generally forgiving with simnilarly aged particpants eg 15 with 15 etc

cheers

didds

[didds]

.....

Not every person holds a position of trust, but I imagine a 40 year old employer with a 17 year old employee would be skating on very thin ice.

yep. I did wonder if that was where he was coming from. Though we never actually covered the "position of power/trust" thing... the conversation was more general...

cheers

didds

[Urbandreamer]

My understanding of such matters is that you need to specify who's law you are talking about.

For example a certain prince could not pe prosicuted under UK law, were the facts to be as reported and were it consentual.
Were it non-consentual then clearly he could be prosicuted under UK law, but nobody is I think actually claiming that.

Under US law then someone may have commited an offence. But who?
The prince was not in the US, so broke no law there.
Is it the woman (who may have been a minor at the time under the laws of her state)?
Did she cross state boarders specificaly for this purpose. I think that would be illegal under US federal law as not all states have the same age of concent (it's apparently 16 in 40 states). In which case who would be responsible? Again, possibly the woman.
Would the UK citizen who provided transport and accomodation be responsible for trafficing? It would have to be proven that they knowingly facilitated an illegal act.

[gryffron]

First of all, there is no crime of "statutory rape" in UK. Your friend has been watching too many Hollywood films (and few British ones )

In the UK the crime used to be "Sex with a minor". This was changed in 2003 to two separate offences of "Sex with a Person under 13" and "Sex with a person under 16".

So 16 is always ok. A 16yo can always grant informed consent, to anyone. If your friend has heard of rich people challenging it, I suspect that was in USA.
Under 13 is never ok, and always prosecuted. Even if the offender is also a youth.
For under 16s, the CPS have considerable leeway. They would certainly not prosecute when the offender is also a youth. They could if they suspected the older person was a serious sexual predator, or where the older person is "in a position of authority" over the youngster. e.g. Teachers, care home staff, step-parents etc. I think this is where your friend is getting his ideas from. I don't think the exact cutoff is defined in law (e.g. @18), but rather at the discretion of prosecutors.

The military issue was a UN ruling on "Youth soldiers". All Western countries agreed to enforce a ban on combat operations for u18s, quite a few years back, as part of the action to tackle boy soldiers in Africa. So although you can still join the British military at 16 3/4, you have to be 18 to go on combat ops.

Gryff

[didds]

FTR - this was a general discussion about English law.



didds

[Bminusrob]

*** Off topic I know***

Oh dear. Having just read this thread, I went to my email, and the only unread message was about buying "Virgin Experience Days".

[kempiejon]

Keeping Children safe in education

Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse. It occurs where an
individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce,
manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into sexual
activity (a) in exchange for something the victim needs or wants, and/or (b) for the

18
financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator. The victim
may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual.
Child sexual exploitation does not always involve physical contact, it can also
occur through the use of technology. Like all forms of child sex abuse, child
sexual exploitation:
• can affect any child or young person (male or female) under the age of 18
years, including 16 and 17 year olds who can legally consent to have sex;
• can still be abuse even if the sexual activity appears consensual;

• can include both contact (penetrative and non-penetrative acts) and non-
contact sexual activity;