Timescales and Sexual Offences, an Update

The petition that I started here has now been going for about a month and a half, and now has nearly 400 signatures.

 

Hopefully all who have read my blog have signed it - if not WHY? - sign it now, it only takes a minute!

 

I have managed to find out the history of this disclosure timescale, and include this below.

 

A week or so ago, I had a reply from Mr Chown, head of Criminal Procedure at the Ministry of Justice, outlining where this 12 month limit originated. I will reproduce part of his e-mail below and elaborate a bit on this after:

 

"The time limit was of long standing, dating back to 1885; as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained in the House of Lords case of R v J, it was originally shorter:

“Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 provided that no prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16) should be commenced more than three months after the commission of the offence. Section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 increased the time limit to six months. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922 increased the period to nine months. Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928 made a further increase to 12 months. That provision was consolidated in the 1956 Act.”

 

The time limit was finally abolished when the 1956 Act was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but only prospectively, with effect from the date when that Act was brought into force in 2004.  In so legislating, Parliament followed the usual principle of non-retroactivity; Lord Steyn’s speech in R v J simply observed without further comment that “The change in the law is, of course, not of retrospective effect”.  Although retrospective removal of the time limit would not amount to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, it is clear that the bar to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural pre-conditions for the bringing of charges against an individual"

 

So, this goes back over 100 years to 1885!!

 

The original Law from 1885 itself an be read here and here (section 5) , and the bit that applies to this is "Provided also, that no prosecution shall de commenced for an offence under sub section one of this section more than 3 months after the commission of this offence".

 

I won't make this post too long, however, I will include a link that does explain further the reasons behind the original 3 month limit, and the reasons for raising it to 12 months. This link can be read here (it is rather long though) and includes the following 2 items:

 

"it was thought then that a girl who fell pregnant, and thus was unquestionably the victim of an offence, was so likely to name the wrong man that the accused needed the exceptional protection of a very short time limit, one which elapsed before her pregnancy had become obvious or even known" (this for the reasons of having the 3 month original timescale),

 

and

 

"it cannot long have been the supposed need to identify a perpetrator before a pregnancy became apparent, because the time limit was soon raised, first to six months by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904, then to nine months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922, and finally to 12 months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928. It was precisely because a pregnancy or childbirth might reveal the offence that the limit was raised. The reasons given for having any limit at all - loss of witnesses and the difficulties of proof - might equally apply to many other offences. But complainants in sexual offences were then still regarded with much more suspicion than other complainants, and so abolition may have been thought too radical to contemplate. However, it is hard to discern any coherent rationale after 1922, because the 1922 Act also provided that consent would no longer be a defence to an indecent assault upon a child or young person under the age of 16. Thus most forms of sexual activity with a girl under 16 became a criminal offence whether or not she consented, but no time limit was prescribed." for the raising of this limit.

 

 

What can be done to remove the 12 months for victims of this crime now disclosing abuse?

I will cover this soon in another posting.

 

Until then, please sign if you haven't yet done so, and please keep sharing and encouraging others to do so - the link is HERE this needs to be removed for the sake of "Sarah", "Sylvie" and "Jane", and all other victims of this crime who have been, and will be denied justice. 

New sentencing guidelines - April 2014.

New sentencing guideline gives greater focus to impact of sex offences on victims

 

 

"The Sentencing Council has published a new sentencing guideline for sexual offences which will help ensure appropriate and consistent sentences for sex offenders.

The guideline covers more than 50 offences including rape, child sex offences, indecent images of children, trafficking and voyeurism, and brings significant changes to how offences are considered by the courts."

"The guideline makes it clear that victims are not responsible for what has happened to them. This is particularly emphasised in relation to offences committed against children. In the previous guideline there were child sex offences labelled as involving ‘ostensible consent’ – that is, where a child over 13 has apparently agreed to sexual activity. The Council believes that this is the wrong way of looking at these offences as children do not consent to their own abuse. The new guideline therefore looks more at the offender’s actions and behaviour towards the victim."

"The new guideline also brings increases in sentencing starting points and sentencing ranges for some offences. For example, in relation to rape, the new guideline allows top category sentences with a starting point of 15 years. The previous guideline only allowed sentences with this starting point for multiple rapes. Sentences of 20 years and above are also now recommended for campaigns of rape. In addition, the worst cases of assault by penetration can now receive the same sentences as rape.
The guideline simplifies the system for assessing indecent images of children which will make analysis of imagery much easier when evidence is being compiled against someone being prosecuted. The new guideline moves away from concentrating on just the number of images and gives more emphasis to what the offender is doing with the images – possessing, distributing or creating – to help assess the offending behaviour and appropriate sentence level. "

"The guideline will come into force in courts in England and Wales in April 2014 and replace existing guidance which was issued by the Sentencing Council’s predecessor body following the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  Sentencing levels for sexual offences have been increasing since the Act, and existing sentencing guideline, came into force, and the new guideline reflects these increases. They do not include any reductions in sentences from current sentencing."

So, a step forward it seems in sentencing guidelines for child sexual abuse crimes.

Some good bits that stand out for me:

 - Ostensible Consent. Where a child over thirteen "consents" to their own abuse. Hopefully this will mean an end to the stories like this here and here - children under the age of consent cannot consent, simple as that. It will be interesting to see if the excuse of consent is used after April 2014 in child sex abuse cases. If it is - it will be challenged - I will make sure of that.

 -  Good character being redefined as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. By redefining this as an aggravating factor, shows that the Sentencing Council seem to be swaying to the notion that paedophiles, have previously groomed the judicial system into reducing sentences on the basis of their previous good character & good deeds - hopefully no more as from April 2014.

 - Abuse of Trust, especially relating to high profile paedophiles. At last. Are people waking up to the fact that some paedophiles become "famous" (or infamous), with the probability that they can and do have unfettered access to children. Not the other way around. Less of the "famous becoming a paedophile" and getting a lesser sentence. More of the "paedophile deliberately becoming famous in order to get access to children" and getting a longer sentence. Common sense!

 - Addition of todays online technology such as webcams, grooming via social media, getting children to share indecent photos of themselves, and subsequent future technological advances. Longer sentences for encryption and recording of offenses.

 - Simpler definitions for accessing IIOC.

I do however have a couple of questions of my own.

 - Regarding IIOC, are the new guidelines going to make much of an impact on the sentences given and the length (if any) of any custodial sentences. We keep reading about Chris Graylings "toughening up" of this crime, yet more and more we see offenders getting fines, community orders and suspended sentences. If he wants to get tough on offenders of this crime, sentences need to increase as well. No deterrent at the moment. Increase the sentence, make the crime Indictable Only, then let the public appeal ULS for "slap on the wrist" sentences. As it stands (from an e-mail I received today from SPPU),
"The taking, making, permitting to take, possessing, possessing with intent to distribute, distributing or advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children under 18 are offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.  These are indictable offences, but not indictable only offences, meaning that they are triable both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court and either the court or the defendant can choose the which court hears the case.  Where the magistrates' court considers that it has insufficient sentencing powers to deal with a triable either way case it can send the case to the Crown Court"

Is this good enough? Why is it not "indictable only"? This is not a "pixels on a screen" crime with no victims! Children are sexually exploited and abused to create these for the benefit of paedophiles and child sex abusers, and the crime should be equally as serious as all other child sexual abuse crimes, and in my eyes should be an indictable only offense.

 - As the sentencing guidelines are going to be more victim orientated, will this mean that there may be a chance that the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 will be updated to reflect this? If so, what chance that they replace the prejudicial wording in it relating to children being involved in pornography and being child prostitutes with something more akin to the actual crimes, namely child sexual exploitation, and children being prostituted? What chance of this being amended? I have e-mailed to find out & will keep you updated. Chance of this, 0.00% I think, but if you don't ask questions and don't try, you will never know.

But, nevertheless all in all, a step forward in the right direction by the Sentencing Council.



Teaching children rape - the South African way

Small post for today.

Dept defends matric rape question

 

 

 

 

"The Department of Basic Education has stood by its decision to ask drama students to describe how they would stage the rape of a baby. 

The matric exam question has seen teachers, students and parents express outrage over the question, which asks the students to stage the rape of a baby using a loaf of bread and a broomstick as props. 

The question was part of the compulsory section of the dramatic arts exam written earlier this week by government schools. 

The question included an extract from playwright Lara Foot’s play Tshepang, which was reportedly inspired by the 2011 rape of a nine-month-old baby in the Free State. "Baby Tshepang" was raped by her mother's boyfriend. 

Students were asked to describe how they would portray the extract to "maximise the horror of the rape". 

Department of Basic Education spokesperson Elijah Mhlanga said in The Mercury that the subject matter was nothing new to the students 

"By the time pupils are in matric, they have begun to be faced with the realities of adulthood, often beyond the security of their homes and the school system," he said in the report. 

"They will, through media and cinema, have been exposed to many horrific images and reports," said Mhlanga."

 

Couldn't make it up!

 

This comes at the same time as the unfolding depravity of Lost Prophets Ian Watkins.

 

Unbelievable. What is there to say? Words fail...

 

For a look at the most recent, and frankly quite shocking rape statistics in South Africa, please click here and here.

 

If I get a reply to my e-mail to S.A Dept of Education, I'll post it here.

 

The Never-ending Debate on the Age of Consent - a Countdown.

15

 

John Ashton

 

Call to lower age of consent to 15

 

"He claims that lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger. "My own view is there is an argument for reducing it to 15 but you cannot do it without the public supporting the idea and we need to get a sense of public opinion about this," he said in the interview."

 

 

 

14

 

Peter Tatchell

 

The Current Age of Consent of 16 Doesn't Protect Young People, It Criminalises Them

 

"The existing consent at 16 law was introduced over 100 years ago in a puritanical Victorian era. Since then, society has moved on to more informed and enlightened attitudes about sex. Most importantly, the average age of puberty and sexual arousal has fallen dramatically to around ten to 11. In the light of new evidence, the issue should be revisited and re-examined."

"Any review of the consent laws should be premised on five aims. First, ending the criminalisation of consenting relationships between teens of similar ages. Second, protecting young people against sex abuse. Third, empowering them to make responsible sexual and emotional choices. Fourth, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex and relationship education. Fifth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of sexual infections like HIV."

 

 



 

13

 

Luke Bozier

 

Sex and the Law - Some ideas for debate



 

"Lower the Age of Consent to 13, which is the current average age of puberty onset + 2 years. This standard should be tested every ten years, with the Department of Health being required to produce a standard definition of the average age of puberty each decade."

 

 

 

Barbara Hewson

 

Age of consent should be 13

 

"As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13."

 

The past few months have seen quite a few news articles concerning the existing age of consent in the UK, and calls for it to be lowered. Firstly by Barbara Hewson back in May, then in the past couple of weeks by John Ashton and Peter Tatchell. In amongst these three, the gem of a blog by Luke Bozier in which he discusses legalising prostitution for anyone over the age of consent (ie 13 in his ideal world), redefining "child pornography" (his words not mine), and legalising necrophilia (with prior consent of both parties prior to death) - not going into this though, you'll have to read his blog if you want to find out more.

 

Now, regarding the ever present AoC debate, why is it continually being brought up on a regular basis? What is the problem with leaving it as it is - ie 16?

 

In all the above articles, the underlying reasons for this call to lower the age of consent seems to be the fact that teenagers are having their first sexual experience when they are under 16. In my opinion, just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a good reason for lowering it.

 

So, questions -

 

• Using this methodology then, shouldn't we be reducing the age of consent for alcohol and tobacco to maybe 13 or 14 as well? After all, a lot of teenagers are drinking and smoking as well. What's the difference? Just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a reason for lowering it. Thoughts anyone?
• Peter Tatchell implies in his article that teenagers are "being criminalised" and are ending up on the Sexual Offenders register and getting criminal records for this - "being lumped together with paedophiles and rapists". Over the past decade in the UK, exactly how many teenagers have been criminalised in this way? Rather than generalising in this manner & (deliberately?) scaremongering, perhaps Mr Tatchell could provide accurate figures for this as I don't know of any that I have seen.
• Three out of the four people above have purely called for the age of consent to be lowered. No indication of whether plans would be put in place to protect 13-16 year olds from child abusers and paedophiles. Only Mr Tatchell has indicated putting measures in place to protect this age group by having a two tiered system similar to other countries. The other three have basically opened to door to exploitation and abuse - and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously in any way.
• Regarding the above statement, and although he has indicated a two tiered system, I disagree with Mr Tatchells argument as although it seemingly closes the door to the potential exploitation by older predators, it opens the door to the pressure of having sex at an earlier age. I would imagine that there are plenty of teenagers of 14 or 15 who use the age of consent as a valid argument - a reason for them not to be pressured into having sex by slightly older peers until they are 16. I would also imagine that this reason does work in a lot of cases. By lowering the AoC to 14, this removes this protective barrier and will result in more pressure for youngsters.
• Professor Ashton indicates in his article that "lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger". Has professor Ashton never heard of Brook here and here? I am sure there are other equally good organisations that offer the same advice as Brook does. Poor argument in my opinion.
• The other underlying justification in the articles is that teenagers are reaching puberty at an earlier age. Is this a good enough reason? What about emotional and mental readiness - are younger teenagers developing earlier mentally and emotionally as well as physically?
• Lastly are there any other reasons such as more peer pressure, the greater accessibility of pornography and the sexualisation of youngsters, drinking etc that are contributing to teenagers having sexual experiences at an earlier age than they might have been years or decades ago? If there are, is this a good enough reason to just lower the AoC on this basis?

So here is the simple solution. Leave it at 16. Why the need to change it? Personally I think that we have it about right here in the UK.



Thirteen - Lucky for some.

Beast beds girl of 13... but it’s not rape

 

 

 

 

An old story, from November last year, but one where the underlying theme of this story is just as applicable today as it was then. As far as I am aware, nothing has changed.

 

Under UK Law as defined by CPS "A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152)".

 

Easily done, I know, but I get very confused regarding the issue of consent. On one hand, wherever you look, it is stated "The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women" (taken from Law On Sex), however, taken from the same article - "Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity"

 

I find this very contradictory - If the legal age of consent is sixteen years old, where does does the second part come from? Surely, the second part is obvious & does not need to be in there - if sixteen is the age on consent, then obviously thirteen year olds cannot "legally give consent to any form of sexual activity" (and nor can fourteen or fifteen year olds) either?

 

However, going back to the article from November 2012, it states "Fury erupted last night after prosecutors scrapped a rape charge amid claims the girl consented"

 

How does this work then?

 

How can a thirteen year old have consented in the eye of the law, when "A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law"?

 

There have been other articles I have read, that also refer to sexual consent by under sixteen year olds.

 

According to Weightlifting champion Dylan Scott, 21, jailed for rape, from May this year, "It is plain that the jury must have proceeded on the basis there was consent". This was a 14 year old child.

 

And from the Peterborough Telegraph from June this year - Appeal rejected for teen who got 12-year-old pregnant - "The 17-year-old youth, who cannot be named, said he thought his victim was 13 and had consented to sex" If the legal age of consent is 16, why would someone think this?

Why does the 2003 Sexual Offences act, split offences between Children Under Thirteen and Thirteen to Sixteen if a child of sixteen cannot give consent?

Why are children still made to argue "consent or not consent" in courts when they are thirteen to fifteen years old and have been raped / sexually abused, if the legal age of consent is sixteen?

Is it really a case of "Thirteen - Lucky for Some" if you are a paedophile, have been caught, and have sexually assaulted / raped a child between thirteen to sixteen.

Then, at least, you can argue that the child consented, somehow.

Any answers gratefully received - please feel free to leave a comment below and let me know where I have misinterpreted this.