Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

The age of consent to be raped....

56 replies

InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 16:07

I was shocked by this story about two twelve year-old girls being raped by six men, as anyone would be.

Apparently, from what was said in court, one of the two girls had texted the men and set up the meeting and allegedly suggested having sex. She ended up being raped by five of them.

The age of consent in the UK is 16, so below that age a girl cannot legally give her consent to sex.

But further down in the article there was this quote:

"if the activities had taken place just four weeks later than they had, when the main girl would have turned 13, none of the defendants would have faced any criminal charges because of the defence provided by her actions."

In other words (it seemed to me) although at age 13 a girl is judged legally unable to give consent to sexual intercourse, it seems she can consent to being statutorily raped. Hmm

Have I got this thoroughly mixed up?

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 14/04/2011 16:12

That was a quote from the defence lawyers, trying to put the case for their rapist clients. They'd still have had to use it in court and get it past the judge and jury.
A good prosecutor should have been able to attack it and get it dismissed.

K999 · 14/04/2011 16:13

Rape is rape if you you don't give consent, regardless of age, surely?

sethstarkaddersmackerel · 14/04/2011 16:17

I don't understand that either. Note it was the defence lawyers that said it though, and they would have a motive for talking this kind of bollocks.

this is a nauseating article, it is all about the poor upstanding men whose lives were ruined by these awful lying girls. Eg 'They highlighted the lies of the young girl who took part in most of the sexual activity and said that if it had not been for their clients' honesty and full descriptions of events, the Crown Prosecution Service would have had no case.'

ffs! it practically reads as if it is the men that have been raped by the girls, not the other way round.

why are people so ready to accept excuses? No man is ever forced to have sex with an underage girl - 'They were said to have been shocked and disgusted to learn the true ages of the girls, with one stating: 'I've got a little sister about that age.' - well surely it's fairly obvious that if you don't know a girl and you only think she's 16 because she tells you so, not shagging her until you know her a bit better might be a better idea? Confused
it is this idea that casual sex with 16 year olds is somehow a right that men have and it is all terribly unfortunately that sometimes exercising their right gets them into trouble....

Insomnia11 · 14/04/2011 16:21

If you have sex with a girl under the age of 16 it's statutory rape AFAIK. Whether she consented to have sex or not is neither here nor there. Kids can't actually give valid consent.

seimum · 14/04/2011 16:23

I think it's that if the girl is under 13, an offence of rape is committed even if the girl agreed to sex.

If she was 13-15, then the defendants can claim that she gave consent, so it's not rape. It may be another offence, but I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

I think it's tragic that a girl of 12 thinks that asking a group of men to meet her & have sex is a good idea.

AMumInScotland · 14/04/2011 16:24

The thing is, the girls did give consent, or what would have been accepted in law as consent if they had been 13. Presumably the men would still have been charged with having sex with an underage girl, but then I think they have to show that the men knew, or could have been expected to know, that she was underage, which is tricky.

The dodgy parts of the story are the words of the defence council, who could be expected to make it all "not the boys fault" as an attempt to make it seem less serious. But the paper could have pointed out that they didn't agree with the crap the defence were spouting, if they'd thought that.

OeufaBrain · 14/04/2011 16:27

just an horrific story and scenario.

OeufaBrain · 14/04/2011 16:29

one of the girls had to be 'persuaded'.

who are thses 'men' who woiuld queue to fuck young girls in a park? Somebody's sons...:(

AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 16:30

If the girls were over 13, the men would have been charged with "sexual activity with a child" and their defence would have been that they thought they were over 16. I may be wrong on that, although I know far more about the SOA 2003 than I would care for.

Under 13 - consent is off the legal table as in it doesn't matter whether a girl consents or not, it is still rape. Over 13 - no consent, then it is rape, if there is consent, then it is what I describe above.

If I've misunderstood that, I hope someone corrects me.

There was another thread on here a little while ago about this case and I'll try to find it because I seem to remember a quote from somewhere that showed they knew the girls were lying about their age.

AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 16:53

Hmm, can't find it. I did find some discussion about it on the What Acts of Sexism thread but I wonder if I read about them knowing about their ages on the vile NM thread. Not going back to see that, but maybe one of the others who were posting on there will remember.

I really think the key to getting justice for rape victims rests on the reasonable belief of consent and/or age. So often the reasons given are laughable. Does anyone know if it is because the Crown has to make its case against the defendant and so it is procedurally difficult to pursue the "why did you think she consented/was over 16?" line? This is the bit of the whole mess that I cannot get my head around.

AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 17:44

Found something

"The court heard that all six defendants had believed the girls to be at least 16 or 17 although two witnesses in the car recalled one of them saying they were 15 which matched a false date of birth on her Facebook page."

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 17:44

That's really useful, AyeRobot, although I still think Hmm about it. Either 16 is the legal age of consent or not, it seems to me.

But yes, you're right, in another report on the case by a local paper it was clear the men knew the girls were underage (witnesses overheard one of the men telling the others they were fifteen).

And yes, those poor chaps with their promising careers disrupted. My heart bleeds for them.

OP posts:
Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 17:45

X-posted, Aye!

OP posts:
Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 17:47

Yes, Aye, the Crown has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of the charge. It's not for the defence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they were innocent.

OP posts:
dittany · 14/04/2011 17:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 17:56

Yes, the defence said it in mitigation, so it's an academic point. But it still upset me that at 13 the statutory rape law can be effectively overturned (theoretically) by the defence of consent.

I don't know. I guess it is to acknowledge that there is a situation where (say) two teenagers are having consensual sex and although it's against the law, it seems too harsh to chuck the boy into the slammer because of it.

OP posts:
dittany · 14/04/2011 18:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheCrackFox · 14/04/2011 18:13

Those poor men being forced to have sex with a couple of 12 yr old girls. Maybe the girls held a gun to their heads and forced the men to penetrate them? Hmm

dittany · 14/04/2011 18:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 14/04/2011 18:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

noncuro · 14/04/2011 18:29

AyeRobot is right, if a person is under 13 then consent or mistake as to age of victim are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. It is always rape to penetrate someone under 13. (Section 5 SOA 2003 if anyone is interested)

If the victim is 13-15 then there is no automatic 'rape'. I think consent has to be established in the usual way. However there are additional offences, as has already been suggested. Section 9 lays out 'sexual activity with a child' which is various forms of penetration. Again, liability is automatic for under 13s but if the victim is 13-15 the prosecution have to show that the defendant "reasonably believed" that the victim was 16 or over. This is subjective so the jury decide this. I'm not a qualified lawyer yet but my criminal law tutor suggested this might be easier for older men to prove.

I think this seems to say that children under 13 are incapable of consenting in any circumstances, but that children aged 13-15 can consent to some degree I think what the law criminalises in having sex with 13-15yos is that the defendant KNEW they were under the legal age of consent, whereas with an under 13 what is being criminalised is having sex with someone who can never consent. It does therefore seem a bit redundant to have an age of consent of 16 at all...

I also think this consent issue points to an unwillingness by parliament to label people as 'rapists' when they have had sex with someone who agreed. It's as if 12 is the oldest age where people could accept a young girl/boy could never be 'leading a man on'.

Please correct me if I've got the law wrong but I think that's right.

noncuro · 14/04/2011 18:32

The defence have to show that the defendant "reasonably believed" the victim was 16 or over, sorry.

dittany · 14/04/2011 18:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

noncuro · 14/04/2011 18:52

The thing that always came up in discussions about this was the issue of children engaging in consensual activity with each other, the idea that it's unfair to label young kids as rapists and guilty of sexual assault for activity that they are also too young for. At the moment the law says they are as guilty but most offences have a separate sentencing provision. There was an ECHR case on this recently and they decided it wasn't necessarily fair to label children like this but that it was necessary to protect other children from abuse. Again and again this argument of kids having sex with kids comes up in debates (at least at my law school) and to be honest I think it's an excuse. It would be perfectly easy to make it illegal to engage in sexual activity or have sex with (ie rape) someone under 16 unless you were within a year of them in age (or something). The exact specifics aren't really that important here I don't think, I just always think how odd it is that people want to make it as difficult as possible for the law to condemn adults who can consent for having sex with minors who can't.

I'm actually very strongly in favour of children's rights in other areas like consent to medical treatment but these debates always seem to come down to a reluctance to call people rapists.

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 19:11

Very interesting stuff, noncuro.
Yes, that's my problem with the whole thing - it makes a nonsense of the age of consent being 16.

Sure, when I was at school I knew teenagers who were having a sexual relationship aged below 16 - I expect we all did. And at the time I would have been scandalised if the boys had been prosecuted for it.
But I'm also sure there were girls who were pressured into sex with their "boyfriends" who may have been only a year's different (or less) in age.

And the law is supposedly there to protect minors, yet it does indeed seem to be declaring "open season on young teenage girls bodies."

I suspect your interpretation of events wrt this case is rather closer to what came out in court, dittany.

OP posts: