Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

29 replies

IwantToRetire · 25/08/2024 17:35

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

Thousands of women abused as children may be unable to get justice due to legal anomaly

Exclusive: ‘Loophole’ in England and Wales from Sexual Offences Act is being challenged in human rights court

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

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 26/08/2024 11:07

SummerFeverVenice · 26/08/2024 09:04

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.

They can approve it if it decides that the law is unlawful and discriminatory to women. I would guess that it might be backdated but not necessarily time unlimited and instead only to a point where the old law became discriminatory.

It would be hard to argue that it's not discrimination though.

Iwasafool · 27/08/2024 08:25

SummerFeverVenice · 26/08/2024 08:57

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 wasn't saying the consent laws were OK I was asking if anyone knew the reason, reading it I thought the only reason could be because of a belief she consented which would be difficult to prove one way or the other years later.

StickItInTheFamilyAlbum · 27/08/2024 10:49

The legislation sounds like it has it roots in Victorian law-making around age of consent and child prostitution.

There was a very good thread about it on MN, about Butler, Booth, and the Salvation Army. Senior men opposed it because it would ruin some ritual or other when they took their sons to their first sex worker and how else would useless young girls make a living (I'm paraphrasing). Within the last year, iirc. (AS is being useless.)

NPET · 27/08/2024 11:59

It's pathetic - but SO typical.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page