Judges strike again
Discussion
I'm flabbergasted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4227287.stm
Boy loses under-age sex legal bid
A teenager convicted for having under-age sex with a girl of the same age has failed in a High Court bid that he was discriminated against.
The boy was 15 when he was found guilty by Llandudno magistrates.
But two High Court judges said it was right that girls should not face prosecution "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not".
Human rights lawyers described it as a landmark ruling.
The teenager claimed he had suffered unlawful discrimination because he was prosecuted and the girl was not, even though she consented.
Now 17, he was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse under the 1956 Sexual Offences Act in 2003.
It followed his admission that he had sex with the girl, also 15, in Conwy, North Wales.
He was convicted by Llandudno magistrates and given a 12-month supervision order.
Public morals
The High Court heard that at first an allegation of rape was made but after being interviewed by police at length the girl denied it had been.
The boy's counsel Gareth Roberts argued that the law was "automatically discriminatory against males under 16" and was "incompatible" with the Human Rights Act of 1998.
He said: "Both consent - yet only the male can be convicted under the 1956 Act. This makes the 15-year-old boy an offender and the 15-year-old girl a victim, despite her consenting to sex."
Mr Roberts said the human rights convention protected the right to private life and covered acts of consensual sex.
He also argued that recent laws now made it an offence for anybody under 16, regardless of gender, to have sexual contact.
But dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Pill and Mrs Justice Cox said a law aimed at preventing sexual contact between 15-year-olds, even by consent, did not breach the convention.
It was also justified on the grounds of public morals and the public interest.
Different treatment of the sexes under the 1956 Act was also justified "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not," Lord Justice Pill added.
Human rights lawyers said Tuesday's case was important because, if the boy had won, other youths convicted in the past could have sought pardons or to have their own convictions quashed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4227287.stm
Boy loses under-age sex legal bid
A teenager convicted for having under-age sex with a girl of the same age has failed in a High Court bid that he was discriminated against.
The boy was 15 when he was found guilty by Llandudno magistrates.
But two High Court judges said it was right that girls should not face prosecution "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not".
Human rights lawyers described it as a landmark ruling.
The teenager claimed he had suffered unlawful discrimination because he was prosecuted and the girl was not, even though she consented.
Now 17, he was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse under the 1956 Sexual Offences Act in 2003.
It followed his admission that he had sex with the girl, also 15, in Conwy, North Wales.
He was convicted by Llandudno magistrates and given a 12-month supervision order.
Public morals
The High Court heard that at first an allegation of rape was made but after being interviewed by police at length the girl denied it had been.
The boy's counsel Gareth Roberts argued that the law was "automatically discriminatory against males under 16" and was "incompatible" with the Human Rights Act of 1998.
He said: "Both consent - yet only the male can be convicted under the 1956 Act. This makes the 15-year-old boy an offender and the 15-year-old girl a victim, despite her consenting to sex."
Mr Roberts said the human rights convention protected the right to private life and covered acts of consensual sex.
He also argued that recent laws now made it an offence for anybody under 16, regardless of gender, to have sexual contact.
But dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Pill and Mrs Justice Cox said a law aimed at preventing sexual contact between 15-year-olds, even by consent, did not breach the convention.
It was also justified on the grounds of public morals and the public interest.
Different treatment of the sexes under the 1956 Act was also justified "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not," Lord Justice Pill added.
Human rights lawyers said Tuesday's case was important because, if the boy had won, other youths convicted in the past could have sought pardons or to have their own convictions quashed.
There has never been equality on this.
A male can be charged with statutory rape if he has sexual intercourse with a female under 16, regardless of his age.
To my knowledge, there is no such offence for a male under 16 and a female over 16.
Different rules again apply for male homosexual relations.
(The above is just layman's knowledge and I'm happy to be corrected)
A male can be charged with statutory rape if he has sexual intercourse with a female under 16, regardless of his age.
To my knowledge, there is no such offence for a male under 16 and a female over 16.
Different rules again apply for male homosexual relations.
(The above is just layman's knowledge and I'm happy to be corrected)
JonRB said:
There has never been equality on this.
A male can be charged with statutory rape if he has sexual intercourse with a female under 16, regardless of his age.
To my knowledge, there is no such offence for a male under 16 and a female over 16.
Different rules again apply for male homosexual relations.
(The above is just layman's knowledge and I'm happy to be corrected)
I believe that some child abuse law can be used in this instance, although they would be hard pressed to get the grin off the lads face I can imagine.
JonRB said:
There has never been equality on this.
A male can be charged with statutory rape if he has sexual intercourse with a female under 16, regardless of his age.
Thats not quite right Jon!
He can't be charged with rape unless there is evidence that he has raped. Just having unlawful sexual intercourse does not constitute an offence of rape!
JonRB said:
To my knowledge, there is no such offence for a male under 16 and a female over 16.
There is and it is used especially in the instance of adult female teachers becoming involved with their adolescent male students!
JonRB said:
Different rules again apply for male homosexual relations.
Both must be above the age of 16. If they are not then sexual assault and unlawful intercourse are charges which may be considered.
JonRB said:
(The above is just layman's knowledge and I'm happy to be corrected)
. >> Edited by gone on Wednesday 2nd February 11:59
gone said:Has this changed in the last 20 years? I was basing my knowedge on an incident from when I was at school (that I was not in any way involved in, I should add)
Thats not quite right Jon!
He can't be charged with rape unless there is evidence that he has raped. Just having unlawful sexual intercourse does not constitute an offence of rape!
gone said:I should keep up. I thought it was still 21. I know they were talking about lowering it to 16 but didn't realise that had actually happened.
Different rules again apply for male homosexual relations.
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 2nd February 12:04
JonRB said:
Has this changed in the last 20 years? I was basing my knowedge on an incident from when I was at school (that I was not in any way involved in, I should add)
No. It hasn't as far as I am aware, there must have been more to it than consensual intercourse!
The law in relation to sexual offences is complex and there is lots of it.
Generally, a female under 16 cannot lawfully consent to sexual intercourse or any sexual act but this does not constitute rape if she actually does so. There has to be more to it!
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a girl under 13 is classed as a SERIOUS ARRESTABLE OFFENCE which gives Police sweeping extra powers! It is not necessarily rape although it could well be.
gone said:
Both must be above the age of 16. If they are not then sexual assault and unlawful intercourse are charges which may be considered.
JonRB said:
I should keep up. I thought it was still 21. I know they were talking about lowering it to 16 but didn't realise that had actually happened.
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 2nd February 12:04
Certain elements of our great Nations leadership are of the opinion that is right and proper to bugger schoolboys!!
>> Edited by gone on Wednesday 2nd February 12:44
jimothy said:That's what I thought.
I believe the correct term is 'Statutory Rape' and covers consented sex with someone who is deemed not to be able to give consent. This covers girls under 16 and mentally handicapped people as well.
However, I suspect gone is probably right as, if I know him at all, I know he wouldn't offer an opinion unless he was sure of his facts.
I missed that first time I read the article. Priceless 
jimothy said:
I believe the correct term is 'Statutory Rape' and covers consented sex with someone who is deemed not to be able to give consent. This covers girls under 16 and mentally handicapped people as well.
Strange way of looking at it really...
You cannot be guilty of rape just by the fact the girl is under 16 years old. Otherwise what would be the point of the offence of USI?
Sexual intercourse with a mental defective is yet another specific offence!
So if homosexual sex with a boy under 16 classes as Sexual Assault, and as we've seen, the male is usually prosecuted, then two 15 year old gay lads doin a bit would be, legally, sexually assaulting each other.
Ahhh...I wanna see that...err..the case, not the act.
1 Crime, 2 Perpitrators, No victim.
Ahhh...I wanna see that...err..the case, not the act.
1 Crime, 2 Perpitrators, No victim.
funkihamsta said:
Pretty sure the statutory rape thing is under 13...means that a male cannot say "she said she was 16" which is a valid defense if accused when the girl is 15 for example.
There is no statutory rape charge.
There is an offence of USI under 13 which is a serious arrestable offence bringing with it extra powers for the Police to effect arrest of the suspect and to detain him/take samples from his body/deny his rights etc.
STATUTORY RAPE is not an offence in UK. The offence is just rape!
Lads can say what they like about what they allege they were told by the female. The only defence to USI is if the male has not been charged with the offence in the past, the female is over 16 years and the male is under 24 years. the test of the childs age in court wuill be by birth certificate or in the abscence of that, the evidence of the childs parent/s on oath as to the date of their birth.
The offence is of 'strict liability' which means the fact the girl is under 16 makes the offence complete. Whether the male knew or was told a lie about her age is immaterial!
Any male over 24 years has no defence to this charge other than the hope of an acquital because the allegation was either false or the intercourse itself never took place. Intercourse is a question of fact for the court and does not require the emition of 'seed'
to make it complete. There would of course be other offences to consider such as indecent assault on a female or Gross indecency with a child, both of which attract sentences of about the 10 year mark!!!
>> Edited by gone on Wednesday 2nd February 19:18
gone said:
The only defence to USI is if the male has not been charged with the offence in the past, the female is over 16 years and the male is under 24 years. the test of the childs age in court wuill be by birth certificate or in the abscence of that, the evidence of the childs parent/s on oath as to the date of their birth.
>> Edited by gone on Wednesday 2nd February 19:18
I think you've got something wrong there gone.
If the female is over 16years, then an offence of USI cannot be committed.
>> Edited by sparkythecat on Wednesday 2nd February 23:17
sparkythecat said:
The only defence to USI is if the male has not been charged with the offence in the past, the female is over 16 years and the male is under 24 years. the test of the childs age in court wuill be by birth certificate or in the abscence of that, the evidence of the childs parent/s on oath as to the date of their birth.
>> Edited by gone on Wednesday 2nd February 19:18
I think you've got something wrong there gone.
If the female is over 16years, then an offence of USI cannot be committed.
>> Edited by sparkythecat on Wednesday 2nd February 23:17
You are correct, a typo/braino has crept into my draft. It should have read under 16 
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff