Women sexual abused as minors not able to seek legal justice unlike men

[IwantToRetire]

Thousands of women who were sexually abused as children could be unable to obtain justice because of an anomaly in the law of England and Wales that is being challenged at the European court of human rights.

The problem results from the 1956 Sexual Offences Act, which dictated that prosecution of the offence of sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, which applies when a girl aged 13 to 15 factually consented (even though as children they could not consent in law), “may not be commenced more than 12 months after the offence charged”.

The law was changed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but it does not apply retrospectively. This means that if the alleged offence of sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 occurred prior to 1 May 2004 the limitation period still applies.

Only women are affected, as the legislation did not apply to boys, so males face no equivalent time limits.

Report continues at 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

What a surprise.

It’s revolting. I did wonder if there was a lesser charge for which they could be prosecuted outside the statute of limitations.

Do you think it’s more likely an oversight, as in not thinking boys/men would be affected at all, than excluding them from the limitation?

Article 7 of the European Convention says that criminal law cannot be applied retrospectively. That is why it has to go to the ECHR for decision.

It's the only offence in the 1956 Act that has a 12 month limitation

I think it is far more likely that it was done to protect men because socially for centuries adult men have preyed on young girls.

This is madness- the poor woman who must've thought she'd finally get justice until the police told her this. Hope the ECHR can save her and all the others seeking justice.

The case has been brought by Lucy (not her real name), who was 13 when a man 22 years her senior began having sex with her. Despite him admitting it, police told her charges could not be brought because she did not report the alleged offence in time.

That is really shocking.

Disgusting.

Unfortunately not. 'Indecent assault', i.e. anal rape, if the victim was a woman then the max sentence was 2 years, if the victim was male it was 10 years.

Marital rape was legal until 1992.

That is pretty horrible. 12 months! I'm confused though. Does this basically mean we don't prosecute cases of rape of 13-15 year old girls if they are historical? So someone like Savile couldn't have been prosecuted? (Although he probably could for even younger girls, and for post 2004). I'd never realised that. A year is nothing.

I wonder if the reason boys are left out of it is to do with the fact that (male) homosexuality was still illegal. They almost didn't think of specifying about boys because they would be covered by another law anyway.

The other thing is you can't really go changing a law and make something retrospectively illegal. That would be an awful way for governments to abuse power. So I do get that part. What I don't get is the logic behind the 12 months. I'd be interested to read the Hansard from back then.

Happy to stand corrected, I’m not familiar with this legislation at all. Infuriating but not at all surprising.

So are they saying she consented?

The problem results from the 1956 Sexual Offences Act, which dictated that prosecution of the offence of sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, which applies when a girl aged 13 to 15 factually consented (even though as children they could not consent in law), “may not be commenced more than 12 months after the offence charged”.

Consent laws then were rubbish.
There was a case in the 80s during the AIDs crisis where a woman begging her rapist to use a condom was judged to have consented to sex, and therefore she wasn’t raped.

The advice to girls of my generation was if being raped, make him beat the shit out of you because no bruises, no beating meant no struggle and that it’s just regret not rape. I think this held true for the rest of the 20th century.

I think the view for Lucy would similarly state that because the man was able to have sex with her multiple times, with no struggle and her not trying to run away or report, then she must have consented.

I think marital rape was legal until a landmark case was decided in 1995, and not made a statutory offence until 2003.

This is appalling. The laws are just designed to disadvantage women. That poor woman. Please tell me the government is going to change this as a matter of priority.

It’s to protect the men doing the rapes.

But also, male on male rape did not exist in 1956- it wasn’t recognised until,1994.

Homosexuality was illegal, but men raping boys as was endemic in the public boarding schools wasn’t considered to be homosexual activity.

The U.K. Gov can’t change it, the law prohibiting applying criminal laws retrospectively is at the international level and only the European Court for Human Rights can approve exceptions. This is one they should approve.

Dear God.
A 13yr old has only a year to realise it’s abusive and seek help.

Yes - this the bit (outside of my by now jaded horror at the treatment of women and girls) - how can a child be expected to report it within a year - how can they put the legal responsibility on a child - who might not even know it's illegal?

If it was a child committing a crime they would be treated differently than an adult committing a crime, but a child having a crime committed on them is treated like this? It makes no sense (at least not if you recognise girls as the children they are, rather than just smaller versions of the women you intend to oppress later)

Yet again, girls are adultified to their detriment.

It’s awful and explains one reason why/how child rapists got away with it for so long.

Criminalisation of marital rape timeline:

https://theweek.com/98330/when-did-marital-rape-become-a-crime

On the topic of girls, when it suits men, the law recognises adultification of girls as exculpatory. But there has been successful defence of men up to the age of 25 using the notion of underdeveloped brains as reasons they shouldn't face the consequences of some criminal activity.

Black and/or working class girls [are subject to] adultification. They are treated as if they

• [need] less nurturing
• need less protection
• need to be supported less
• are more independent
• know more about adult topics
• know more about sex

This drives a perception of less innocence and they are treated more punitively by authority figures even when they are victims.

Men raping boys clearly fell under the purview of what was illegal under homosexuality laws. The fact that a blind eye was turned to it in upper class society is a separate issue.

Nevertheless many prosecutions for homosexual acts were against men who had sex with minors.

On the main topic, whilst obviously retroactive laws in general are inhumane, I'm not convinced that should apply to these kinds of statute of limitations cases. The act of having sex with an underage girl was illegal when these men committed it, which is surely the main thing.

How often on MN have we seen women come to the realisation that when they were 13 or so, having sex with a boyfriend in his late 20s or 30s was an act of control and it's taken 20 years or more to recognise it for abuse and plausibly criminal.