Saturday, 7 June 2014

Groomed for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to do anything.

"A woman who was 13 when she was groomed and sexually abused by a man twice her age had her case dropped because a controversial legal ­loophole allowed her attacker to go free.
Today, she tells her harrowing story of how the six-month relationship “ruined her life”.
The woman’s happy family life was destroyed and she was brought up in care, passed around by social services.
But when the victim realised she was abused and plucked up the courage to seek justice against the man she once trusted, she was told by the Crown Prosecution Service he could not be charged.
A letter from a senior prosecutor, seen by the Mirror, states: “If the law was different, I would have charged [Mr X] with having unlawful sexual intercourse.”
Sexual offence laws were changed in 2004 so an adult who had sex with a child under 16 could be ­prosecuted with no time limit attached.
But charges cannot be brought against anyone for “consensual” sex with a child under 16 if it happened before 2004 and no complaint is made within a year."
Yet another failing of victims, by an out of date law that makes no sense at all.
Firstly children cannot consent - that is why we have an age of consent (quite obvious really to the majority of the population).
Secondly, what idiot drew up this previous Law, that included a "one year timescale" to report "ostensible" consent for 13 to 15 years old? Who could consider that there would be any benefit in doing this at the time? What about victims who didn't disclose until after a year after "ostensibly" consenting to being groomed and abused by an adult?
Thirdly, what happens now? Another way to stop victims coming forward, if they think their abuser may argue this "consent", therefore making their disclosures "null and void"
What is the point of reporting abuse that happened prior to 2004, if this is the end result?
According to the Mirror article, "It is thought to have allowed hundreds of Britain’s worst abusers to walk free as the police are left powerless to charge them". Is this good enough? Not in the slightest. As I said firstly, Appalling!
Proof of this Law is in the enclosed two links. In this link here the section that refers to this offence is article 6 "Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen.". Sentencing guidelines relating to this can be found here, and this states "A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence".
As-such, I have created a petition on to get this one year timescale removed for any future victims that come forward and disclose this type of grooming & rape. Why should victims of this crime, have their cases thrown out because of this unnecessary loophole? Why should some victims be allowed their day in court, and to see their suffering and abuse be dealt with (and hopefully with fair justice), whilst others have their abuse dismissed because of this unjust loophole from 10 years ago?
Please sign this and share it - 100,000 sigs needed before this can be considered for debate in the House of Commons - end date 10 June 2015. Thank you.


  1. Thought you might be interested in this.

    Does not look good but I'm not uneasy about the writer's implied demands for Mr. Chris Leydon to be victimised (e.g. shunned by employers etc.) BEFORE he stands trial.

  2. One of the best ways of ensuing that the inquiry does it's job properly is to ensure that their work will be externally scrutinised. It concentrates the mind and the conscience.

    Please sign this petition to ensure the Jersey inquiry do the best possible job, not the worst that they think they can get away with, as is beginning to look likely with their non-consultation, non-answers and evaporating ToRs

    The future safety of Jersey and UK children depends on these things being done properly.
    More information from Daniel Wimberley's submission to:


    "More victims of abuse at Chetham's music school come forward, with five teachers now accused"

    "[Frances Andrade] 48-year-old wife [who was abused by private school choirmaster from the age of 14] had been “tipped over the edge” by the experience, particularly by [very aggressive] questions from Kate Blackwell QC."

    Frances Andrade had been adopted as a child

    The terrible cost of doing the right thing with the law which so favours the rapists.
    No need for change as it all pays the legal industry rather well.