The appellant aged 15, had sexual intercourse with a girl aged 12. He pleaded guilty to a charge of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5 of the 2003 Act, on the written basis that the intercourse was consensual in fact (although by reason of her age the girl was incapable of giving legal consent) and that he believed her to be aged 15 because she had told him so. The prosecution accepted his basis of plea and he received a custodial sentence. The court considered the strict liability offence of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 13.
Held: His complaint was inadmissible. ‘the court does not consider that Parliament’s decision not to make available a defence based on reasonable belief that the complainant was aged 13 or over can give rise to any issue under article 6(1) or (2) of the Convention.’
On the question as to whether article 8 applied, not every sexual activity behind closed doors would necessarily fall within its scope, but, in the circumstances that both parties in fact consented and that G reasonably believed the girl to be the same age as himself, it was ‘prepared to accept’ that the sexual activities at issue fell within the meaning of private life. However, it held that the state’s margin of appreciation regarding the means of protecting children from sexual exploitation was wide and that the complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill founded.
37334/08, [2011] ECHR 1308, [2012] Crim LR 46, (2011) 53 EHRR SE25
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Sexual Offences Act 2003
Human Rights
Citing:
At HL – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Cited by:
Cited – AB v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 5-Apr-2017
This appeal is concerned with a challenge to the legality of legislation of the Scottish Parliament which deprives a person, A, who is accused of sexual activity with an under-aged person, B, of the defence that he or she reasonably believed that B . .
Cited – SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.443830
