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.

"So the court case was about "mutual consent"?"

No, if an adult family member "intentionally" has sex with another family member under the age of 18 then that is an offence. Family member includes grandparent/grandchild.

The grandmother's defence was that she did not "intentionally" have sex with her grandson but that she was raped.

The jury preferred her evidence to that of the grandson.

"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."

Totally agree with your main point though.

I'm off to find myself a nice nursing home now I've been told I'm elderly.

My business and teenagers will have to look after themselves...

Anchor homes take people of 55 and over. Plenty at that age go for it.

It's difficult to make any kind of judgement without hearing the full evidence. The only ones who know what actually happened are the defendant and the complainant.
It's not totally unknown for an older woman to assault a younger boy (not saying that she did do that)

It went to court and the jury determined she hadn’t consented. Unless you are calling into question our whole judicial system then she wasn’t the instigator here

I believe the woman. Whatever the case is, that boy is utterly sick.

So incidents happened.
She reported them to the police.
The CPS decide to prosecute her for the incident.
Her defence team are allowed to bring up the boy’s previous behavioural history.
The boy admits he instigated it, but resists admitting it was rape and that she was crying.
The jury acquits her.

Have I understood correctly?

Because basically it’s yet another, ‘don’t trust the police to protect women’ story, isn’t it? Misogynists’ charter.

Quote from a news story
‘After a short deliberation, the jury acquitted Ms Charlesworth, [[address removed] on all counts.’

Short jury deliberation for a not guilty verdict is interesting, suggests it was very obvious to the jury that she was not the guilty party. I wonder what his relevant previous sexual history contained especially since it was significant enough her barristers were able to get it disclosed in court.

Poor lady, what an ordeal.

if an adult family member "intentionally" has sex with another family member under the age of 18 then that is an offence. Family member includes grandparent/grandchild

I didn't know, and seems strange if the law says at 16 you can give consent.

So would that be statutory rape?

Is it part of particular law.

Would like to read more about it.

Its clear (there was a thread on here that made depressing reading) that many women have been subjected to rape by family members when still living at home.

Its probably too late now for some of them, but a common theme seemed to be that it was only years later that they felt able to confront what had happened and start to think about getting justice.

(sorry bit of a derail but was intrigued by this legal fact)

Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Thanks - will have a look tomorrow.

There doesn't seem to be any way to search on family, so will have to look through it all.

Sections 25 and 26 Sexual Offences Act 2003 create the offences of sexual activity with a child family member and inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity. Sections 64 and 65 Sexual Offences Act 2003 make it an offence for a person aged over 16 years to penetrate or consent to penetration by a family member who is aged 18 years or over.

I cant quite get this but am quite tired.

It sort of implies that if they were both 16 or 17 it wouldn't be an offence.

@IwantToRetire It all gets very complicated.

"I didn't know, and seems strange if the law says at 16 you can give consent.
So would that be statutory rape?"

Just to go off on a bit of a tangent. When it comes to sex, just ordinary consensual sex, if a child is under 13 then it is a "strict liability" offence and the other person has no defence.

However, if the child is between 13 and 16 then the other person does have a defence if they can show that they "reasonably believed" that the child was at least 16. Although, of course, if it was non-consensual then it is rape.

This does happen. There was a case reported in The Guardian a few years back concerning a star from the TV show "Dragon's Den". He was charged with having sex with a girl under 16 but he made the case that since they had met on an "adult" type of website which was meant for over 18s only that he reasonably believed that she was over 16 and he was found not guilty.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/29/former-dragons-den-panellist-doug-richard-cleared-of-child-sex-offences

"Sections 25 and 26 Sexual Offences Act 2003 create ..."

"I cant quite get this but am quite tired."

There are two different things going on here. Section 25(1) reads:

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

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) the relation of A to B is within section 27,
(d) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that his relation to B is of a description falling within that section, and
(e) either—
(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.

So, A has to "intentionally" touch B and it must be "sexual".

Then the family relationship has to be one that is included in Section 27. This includes a whole range of different scenarios but definitely includes grandparent/grandchild.

Then with age, there is a strict liability if the child is under 13. If the child is between 13 and 17 then A must "reasonably believe" that they are at least 18 otherwise it is an offence. The burden of proof of this lies with A.

The Explanatory Notes to the Act give this following example:

"[52] A has never met the child before, and so does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that she is his sister, and reasonably believes she is over 18, he will not commit this offence by engaging in sexual activity with her, even though she is in fact his sister, and only 14."

Section 26 is the same but covers "inciting" so there doesn't even need to be any touching.

"Sections 64 and 65 Sexual Offences Act 2003 make..."

This is the confusing bit. Section 25 & 26 are there to cover the older relative, A.

But Sections 64 & 65 also say that, in the above cases, if B is 16 or older and agrees to penetration then they are also guilty of an offence, but not if they are under 16.

The penalties are a lot lower in this situation. For an adult convicted under Sections 25 or 26 the maximum sentence is 14 years. A child has a maximum sentence of 5 years.

But under Sections 64 & 65 the maximum sentence is 2 years.

So there’s an incest clause? All sex between close relatives is illegal for all parties over 16.

The jury determined that they couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt that she had consented.

That's all we know for certain - but of course it's entirely possible that they were very sure that she was raped, especially given the short deliberation.

Yes but only if they deliberately and knowing do it. Not if they're the victim of assault or they didn't know they were related.

I’m very wary of scrutinising the behaviour of rape complainants. It rarely ends well for women- remember that judge’s thong comment?

However in this case, it seems very relevant.

I wonder whether the grandmother will have the opportunity to have the 16yr old prosecuted for rape? At least, push the CPS?

We none of us know what happened, only that the defence were able to create reasonable doubt.

Really, thats what you took from this horrifying story?!

It's Thames Valley police, I'm not shocked at all.
My DH and I had an appalling experience with them regards a false and malicious complaint last year. We are both of good character, never had any interaction with police before but they were vicious and abusive.

It was bordering on harassment and a number of pieces of evidence were destroyed or ignored. After a month of abuse and threats DH signed a community order to get rid of them. I still believe this was a mistake and we are pursuing a case against them.

TVP are disgusting. They're one of the only forces who I've seen threaten a child molester entrapment group when they attended to collect evidence.

I believe her. The boy admitted he instigated it. If you know 16 year old boys and 60 year old women which would you think more likely - the teenage boy assaulting his gran on several occasions with granny telling him to get off but finally being overpowered and raped or a randy 60 year old so desperate for sex she responds to her grandson's overtures?

Cant see how anyone but a blatant misogynist would have any doubt even without the boy's previous sexual history, case should never have come to court and he should have been prosecuted for rape. I hope she's safe from him in future.

Because a 16 year old boy is a child, isn't he? The fact he can probably overpower an adult woman is no excuse - except the jury saw straight through that one (perhaps some have sons and know that a boy of 16 will normally be much stronger than a woman) and acquitted the victim on all counts. Now is the point at which the alleged rapist ought to be charged.

@Another2Cats

Thanks - I think I can now almost grasp it (maybe)

That there is strict liability 13 and under.

But between 13 and 17 other factors could mean not liable.

Also what seems so odd is mention of the police being contacted about the boy being a concern on previous occassions.

So without saying it was, there is increased evidence of youth to parent, grandparent domestic violence.

Sounds like a really bad situation.

Thames Valley police

in 1982 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_(TV_series)

The series had a significant impact on debate about the role of the police. The most influential episode was the third, A Complaint of Rape, in which a woman who said she had been raped by three men was treated harshly and dismissively by three male police officers.