I don't know if this is the right area for this. Elderly woman raped and then police charged HER with an offence.

[Another2Cats]

This seems to be a really bizarre case.

I was looking into public access barristers and while I was on the website of one chambers I noticed an article about a recent case that I just found so bizarre.

This is written on their own website so I trust it to be accurate. This is the story:

19th July 2024

Andrew and James's client was this week acquitted of multiple allegations of penetrative sexual activity with a child family member at Oxford Crown Court.

Their lay client, a 60-year-old grandmother of positive good character, was accused of willingly having sexual intercourse with her then 16-year-old grandson.

The case had a protracted procedural history, with the defendant insisting from the commencement of the court proceedings that she was in fact the victim of serious sexual assaults and rapes at the hands of her grandson.

There were repeated representations made to Thames Valley Police and the CPS to interview and treat the defendant as the true victim in the case, but after numerous ‘reviews’ the CPS insisted on proceeding to trial on the allegations.

Numerous section 41 YJCEA applications interlinked with Bad Character applications were made successfully by Andrew and James.

On Thursday of this week, the jury retired for under an hour before acquitting the defendant of all counts on the indictment.

Andrew and James were instructed by Angela Porter of Angela Porter Solicitors.

https://www.lambbuilding.co.uk/andrew-selby-kc-and-james-hay-represent-defendant-acquitted-of-novel-allegations-of-familial-sexual-offences/

I really find it hard to understand in that sort of situation why the CPS took that decision.

"Numerous section 41 YJCEA applications ... were made successfully"

These are applications to bring up the complainant's previous sexual behaviour evidence.

Successful applications are really not common at all.

At least the jury seemed to have a bit of sense.

Have not heard anything about this, but just wanted to say it's not unusual to blame the woman (see many many new stories of women's clothing/phone records being questioned etc etc) Also see the recent story about a very young girl who was raped by 8 men, I think only one of them received a light sentence, and then SHE was taken to court for calling him a rapist.

Um. 60 is not elderly

edited rest after reading properly!

It clearly states she was sexually assaulted and raped so was not a willing participant which the jury, on looking at the evidence we can’t see, agreed with

a tragic story all round

Well according to some, women are always to blame. (She led him on/wore a short skirt etc)

But, as well as that, on the face of it she was the adult. So it would possibly have been assumed that it was her choice. And therefore she was wrong.

And to make it clear, I'm not saying she was wrong. I'm not blaming her at all. But I can see how someone might come to that conclusion.

Her exact age isn't the point - she says that she was raped by her grandson, so she did not willingly have sex with him. She was acquitted, anyway. I don't know what the legal defences are to a charge of familial sexual relations, does anyone else?

Do you have any more information, @Another2Cats ? It's hard to know what to make of it.

My post at 11.29 was a response to the unedited version of Aussieland's post which said that 60 was not elderly and in the absence of evidence of cognitive impairment, she had had sex with the boy which was a disgusting act.

Just adding that so no-one thinks I'm barking!

😳 what the actual fuck is our world coming to

A dreadful event.

No, none at all. It was just reported by the website of those barristers. To be frank, I haven't searched for anything and I doubt anyway that it would have been reported in the news unless she had been found guilty.

As to defence, I just had a look at the Act and the relevant part says:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,

I would guess that the defence said that neither of those things applied and the jury agreed.

yes, I saw the original post as well.

How do you know she was raped? If I’m reading that correctly, the 60 year old woman was on trial for repeatedly having sexual intercourse with her 16 year old grandson. Her defence is that she was raped by him each time and she’s found not guilty. Is there any more information out there on this case? Has the boy been charged or convicted for rape? If not, I don’t think it’s right to call him a rapist.

I wondered if it was one of those strict liability offences - if the facts are proved, you're guilty, no defence. I couldn't imagine consent would be a statutory defence if children were involved, but I didn't know if that applied to a person above the age of consent.

Basically do we think the jury thought she had been raped so rejected the allegations that any sexual activity had taken place, thereby acquitting her?

Rape was her defence, and the jury believed her. I don't think rape by a 16-year-old is any more unlikely than her having sex with the lad. Without any further information it's really hard to parse what has gone on.

Though I agree with the OP that this is significant:

"Numerous section 41 YJCEA applications ... were made successfully"

These are applications to bring up the complainant's previous sexual behaviour evidence.

Successful applications are really not common at all.

Purely looking at it objectively. The only people who know exactly who abused who are the two people involved. I would not like to judge who is to blame, one is a child and one is a woman. I can't pick a side just because I'm a woman because I'm the mother to a 16 year old too. Although I would like to believe a woman wouldn't cry rape without cause, it does happen and on the other hand we are told to believe our children, but they also are capable of lying...

The whole case is awful and I suspect there is probably a lot more to the family dynamics and the people involved than is in this report.

"Their lay client, a 60-year-old grandmother of positive good character..."

Nothing was said about her grandson's previous character.

Rape was her defence, and the jury believed her.

A not guilty verdict doesn’t mean the jury believe the defendant. All it means is that, at the very least, they think there’s reasonable doubt.

That is horrific. Where in the world did this happen? 😢

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,

If sexual activity occurred, the offence was committed by her if it was initiated by her.
If she says she was raped, then she admits sexual activity occurred but without her consent. The sexual activity happened, according to both the CPS and the defence.
Either the jury believed she had been raped or they would have to convict her, surely?
The fact that they did not convict her logically has to mean that they believe that the sexual activity happened without her consent. Does that not make sense? IANAL, obviously.

It was. I mean, we're still none the wiser about what the hell was going on, but..

"Numerous section 41 YJCEA applications ... were made successfully"

These are applications to bring up the complainant's previous sexual behaviour evidence.

Successful applications are really not common at all.

What threw me temporarily was complainant | defendant.

The complainant is the young man. The defendant is the grandmother.

The successful applications to refer to prior sexual behaviour are about the young man's history.

Have I got that right?

Yes.

Right, if there was any kind of evidence against the previous behaviour of the claimed victim, they would probably only need to believe the woman 10% and that's enough.

It's also possible they found her completely convincing and were shocked it ever reached court.

Even if the local police for whatever reason disbelieved the woman (who apparently had contacted them on prior occcassions), you have to ask why the CPS went ahead. Particularly when far more overt and well evidence cases of rape never get to court. Really strange.

This is from a local paper at the time the case was being heard:

During the trial on Wednesday (July 17), the complainant gave evidence in court, telling a jury that he had initiated the sexual activity with Charlesworth but it wasn’t non-consensual.

In cross-examination, the defence barrister for Charlesworth said: “You removed her clothing and forced yourself on her and she made it abundantly clear that she did not want this happening.”

The complainant responded: “Incorrect.”

Continuing, the barrister asked: “Against her will, you put your penis into her vagina and she was crying, wasn’t she? You raped her.”

The complainant responded: “Incorrect.”

“It was you who instigated it, wasn’t it?” the barrister asked finally, and the complainant responded: “Yes.”

https://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/news/24458478.oxford-woman-accused-sexual-activity-teen-boy/

Thank you for finding that.

“It was you who instigated it, wasn’t it?” the barrister asked finally, and the complainant responded: “Yes.”

The young boy raped her and the CPS charged the real victim instead.

I had wondered if the CPS were going to argue it was statutory rape, but apparently that only applies to children under 16.

As from 16 you are deemed to be able to give consent.

So the court case was about "mutual consent"?

But either way think there needs to be an investigation as to why the police didn't investigate early reports about the behaviour of this 16 year old.