Tweet
Hi guys. My FA is historical i.e. pre 2003 - contends that she was 15, when I know she was 16 at the time, although I'm not sure I can prove it. That being said, if the jury believes her I was wondering if anyone knew this - I know that in the 2003 sexual offences act, you have to prove that you took every reasonable step to establish the age of the complainant if they were 15 for sexual assault or rape. In the 1956 act, consensual sexual acts (i.e. oral sex) other than intercourse would be indecent assault and have a statutory interpretation that the prosecution would have to prove 'absence of genuine belief by the defendant that the girl concerned was 16 or over' - my question is, how seriously is this taken? It's written in the act but is it adhered to? There was a case in 2001 that set the precedent for this I think...
Also, how hard would it be for them to prove that I didn't believe she was 16, because it has to be 'honest' as opposed to 'reasonable' (although, reasonable it is). As she contends we had consensual sexual intercourse and there is a statute of limitations of 12 months for the 1956 act for unlawful sexual intercourse, that part of it wouldn't even go to trial would it?
Thanks to anyone who can help shed some light.
S
Also, how hard would it be for them to prove that I didn't believe she was 16, because it has to be 'honest' as opposed to 'reasonable' (although, reasonable it is). As she contends we had consensual sexual intercourse and there is a statute of limitations of 12 months for the 1956 act for unlawful sexual intercourse, that part of it wouldn't even go to trial would it?
Thanks to anyone who can help shed some light.
S
Comment