Jimmy Saville legal loophole that lets child rapists off

[KindCompassion]

Last year I went to the police because I was raped as a 15 year old in 1999. Because he can only be punished by the laws at the time, he cannot be charged with rape because it had to be reported within 12 months, as per the 1956 Sexual Offences Act. If I had been older or younger or a man then he could have been charged with rape.
I am absolutely traumatised by this.

Many of Jimmy Saville’s victims were in this demographic of 13-15 year old girls and I bet he knew full well that if 12 months passed he was home and dry. This is why I call it the Jimmy Saville loophole.

I miraculously got an amendment to the law tabled in the House of Commons in June by Liz Jarvis MP (not my own Labour minister MP who is useless) but they spent more time listening to a Tory whinge about how long it takes to get a shot gun license and they never debated it. I went to the public gallery to watch and my expensive water bottle was stolen when in the care of the Doorkeepers. I had to threaten to sue them to get them to pay me back.

I have written to the Lords who previously talked about this. No response.

I have written to Baroness Casey with my finest fountain pen to ask that this loophole is closed and had no reply. She did the grooming gang review this year that recommended changes to the law to protect teenage girls. She didn’t even include in her report that pre 2004 rapes have this procedural limitation.

I got a reply from Sarah Sackman MP, the Minister in charge. She called what happened as having ‘factual consent’ which as a woman I find a disgusting way to refer to rape.

The Guardian have previously written an article about it. I even wrote to the Daily Mail for help and Nigel Farage because apparently it’s the ECHR which stops the law from being changed to get my justice.

I even wrote to the King, whose secretary did reply but it was useless.

Let’s not even get started on the fact he can’t even be sued now for his assault, like almost every other assault can be sued in civil courts. So if he inherits lots of money from his parents I cannot get it off him.

I am at a complete and utter loss at what to do. There will be thousands of 13-15 year old girls raped between 1956 and 2004 when the new law came into effect, maybe even someone else reading this.

The only people I’ve found who actually care are the Liberal Democrats.

In addition to this, because the man was my brother, my parents and other brother have taken his side, despite admitting that they know I’m telling the truth. I have no blood family now other than my beautiful baby daughter.

I can’t speak to any of the charities that support survivors of sexual abuse because they don’t want to talk to anyone with an active case (they may charge him with a lesser crime).

The police don’t want me to post about this to my large LinkedIn connections in case it is used by the defence as attempting to “prejudice the jury” despite me using a different name professionally.

Oh, and I did try to report within 12 months but the police fobbed me off at the time.

I believe this is the biggest miscarriage of justice in British legal history, dwarfing the post office scandal for numbers of victims (who can’t even be counted if they even went to the police).

The world is a truly horrible place that protects child rapists and I am deeply despairing.

This is awful. I have no advice but thank you on behalf of women everywhere for your efforts you’re really brave and I hope he is locked up

@Unexpectedlysinglemum
thank you. I’ll probably post the email my dad sent me telling me it was ‘right and proper’ for me to drop this, and almost in the same sentence demands access to my baby.
The man is off his rocker if he thinks I’d like a man who supports a child rapist of is own daughter anywhere near my child.
Once the court stuff is over, I’m going to send this email to everyone in his village so they can see what kind of a man he is.

Oh my gosh this is horrendous. You have been -and continue to be! - let down by so many.

I think what many men and women who haven't experienced sexual violence don't understand, is that women's treatment after the event (by family, friends, police, policies, media, MPs etc) can echo the horrors of the crime in it's dehumanising, dismissive nature. As such we are re-traumatised again and again.

I salute your bravery and hope you have real life support.

@OuterSpaceCadet thank you - that means a lot. You’re absolutely right that we are traumatised afterwards. I wish I’d never found out about the Jimmy Saville loophole and realised just how revoltingly the British state has treated girls for 70 years.

@KindCompassion I also salute you.
I was last raped aged 15 by my 25 y/o Uncle. Thank you for speaking up for me too x

I see Prince Andrew has decided to give up his titles. Good.

@KindCompassion you are being very brave because trying to get justice that is blocked this way must be absolutely terrible. I don’t think anyone is aware of this loophole.

I wonder if Panorama or Channel 4 might be interested in investigating it?

Might Baroness Emma Nicholson be sympathetic?

Is there any police record at all from the time when they fobbed you off?

I am so sorry for what happened to you. Incest rape is hidden but more common than people realise and the family goes on as if nothing happened.

@silicon 💐💐too, I am very sorry.

@ScrollingLeaves thank you so much for your kind words. There’s a Guardian article from last year about it, which sadly didn’t make a splash.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/25/thousands-of-women-abused-as-children-may-be-unable-to-get-justice-due-to-legal-anomaly

I’ll try to contact the others you’ve mentioned.

I’ve worked closely with the police most of my career, including with child secual exploitation experts and they hadn’t heard of this. The officer investigating my case hadn’t either.

There’s a great chapter in a book by a legal professor who describes the problem, and his take on why no one cares is that it’s too difficult to succinctly turn into a soundbite for modern media. Utterly depressing.

@siliconcover I’m so sorry. These men have been able to get away with their shit for far too long. They’re lucky I’m only trying to use the Criminal’s Justice System and not natural justice.
Prince Andrew, his disgusting wife Sarah and Mandelson are pure s*. The reason they stayed in contact with Epstein is they just don’t think that raping teenage girls should be a crime.

I really hope you get somewhere with this @KindCompassion and that the people who should will start listening and at least try to do something. The very best of wishes, strength and thank you

Thank you @Worriedaboutrapecourts
I shouldn’t hold my breath. The British State has been very clear that raping teenage girls is no big deal.
I bet more women have been affected by this than grooming gangs.

Well they have an example set at the highest level. Prince Andrew! It’s no wonder it’s not taken seriously!

It's just appalling, solidarity with you.

Might Rights of Women be able to help?

What exactly is this loophole? I might be being dense but it's not clear from the op. The law specifically excludes 13-15 year old girls from prosecuting historic rape unless it was reported within 12 months if when it happened?

Ignore my post, I searched and got this

Under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (which governed cases like yours from 1999 until the law changed in 2004):

Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged 13-16 (Section 6) was classified as a misdemeanor. This meant it could be tried summarily (in magistrates' court), and UK law at the time required any prosecution to start within 12 months of the offense. If that window closed, no charges could be brought—no matter how severe the assault or how credible the evidence later.

This time limit didn't apply to most other sexual offenses under the same Act:

Girls under 13: Charged under Section 5 as a felony (intercourse with a girl under 13), with no time limit—prosecutable at any time.

Anyone 16 or older: Could be charged as rape (Section 1), a felony with no time limit, if non-consensual.

Boys or male victims: Often fell under buggery (Sexual Offences Act 1967) or indecent assault provisions, which also had no time limits.

Other assaults (e.g., indecent assault on any age/gender under Section 14 or 15): Generally no time limits, as they were felonies or handled differently.

In practice, for a 13-15-year-old girl like you were, non-consensual penetration was typically charged as "unlawful sexual intercourse" rather than "rape" because the law presumed girls in that age bracket couldn't legally consent anyway (age of consent was 16).

But that "protection" came with the cruel catch: the 12-month clock. Perpetrators (who often knew the law or had advisors who did) could simply wait it out, gaslight the victim into silence, or rely on trauma delaying disclosure. Once a year passed, they were effectively immune from criminal charges for that specific crime.

This is why you mentioned it wouldn't apply if you'd been "older or younger or a man"—the law's structure created an arbitrary safe harbor for abusers targeting that narrow demographic.

This is shocking and makes me think the law must obviously have specifically been made like that to protect the lawmakers at the times interests, no doubt.

I suspect it prevents adults who were raped as children getting justice

It's fucking sick isn't it.

I think it comes from the belief that it's perfectly understandable for some men to want to rape girls of this age. Agree lawmakers either did it themselves or identified with those men that did. That mentality that the merest hint of puberty = she's up for it.

It's basically implicit written in every culture that rape is almost to be understood as a natural part of being a woman. Just another experience for us to suck up.

God I'm so sorry OP, I'd never heard of this loophole.
You mention the grooming gangs, well it's the same misogynistic attitude at play, isn't it. Sexually active young teenagers, must be up for it. Possibly even instigating it.
Couldn't possibly be that they were victims, predated upon. Must have been their fault. Can't blame the blokes for going along with it.
I don't know how you have the strength to keep plugging away at this, but I'm so thankful that there are strong women like you who refuse to give up and keep demanding justice.

Bingo. The laws were written by rapists and their friends. The response you got is I think a little incorrect- rape was always a felony and not a misdemeanour, although that distinction was removed in 1967
This is the only indictable or felony offence in English statutes with a 12 month notification period. Every other serious offence can be prosecuted at any point.

@LizzyEm sorry just another small thing that was very impactfully incorrect, is this only affects girls aged 13-15 when they were raped, not 16 year olds.
It’s a very fucked up world we live in. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. If you could write to your MP I’d really appreciate it.

My MP is a piece of shit but I'll send it to Rupert Lowe, he will probably be interested in this.

I'm even more shocked that they CHANGED the law TO this.

Anyone 16 or older: Could be charged as rape (Section 1), a felony with no time limit, if non-consensual.

Boys or male victims: Often fell under buggery (Sexual Offences Act 1967) or indecent assault provisions, which also had no time limits.

This is extraordinarily wrong. Is there any organisation dealing with:

a. Miscarriages of justice against the spirit of the law ( as evidenced by how it works for the categories ‘over 16’ or ‘boys or male^?

b. Miscarriages of justice caused by obvious lacunas in the law?

It might be that times have changed a bit for the better in the U.K. to the extent that descent men admit ( privately too in their own minds) that no, pubescent girls are not fair game. I think quite a few men remain flexible about it in their minds though so it will be with reluctance and would take acts of attrition against this law to get change.

In the ‘70s I can think of a number of girls who were 13 with much older ‘boyfriends’. It was all accepted but I do think it would not be as accepted now.

The other problem is the ‘boys will be boys’ ‘he was just experimenting,’ attitude parents have about rapist brothers and cousins, (and brothers of best friends).

I wonder if there is a Facebook page of survivors of this era?

I was raped repeatedly from age 14/15 by my starters godfather and the pice took it incredibly soapy when I reported it age 31. They went to speak to him in prison where he was serving time for another child sex abuse case. Unfortunately it didn’t go farther but it’s all in file and the police said they will contact me again if anybody else comes forward to report him, and that it will strengthen my case. Two police officers worked for 6 full days to investigate, question my family and friends and interview him etc. So I don’t understand why yours is different?

Nope. Literally no one cares about this. Look what happened with the post office - far fewer victims, and still took decades.
There is no distinction in the law for ' she consented' from 'she fought for her life' as I did. The crime just cannot be brought to court now.

We victims are silenced by shame that we do not own, so who would join a facebook group for this and organise?

@GreenGodiva I'm so sorry to hear what happened to you too, and that they took it no further. It's disgusting that you didn't get justice.