Actions of a panicked Government leave children to protect themselves

ON Tuesday the simple phrase, “I didn’t know she was a 14-year-old at the time” saw a 26-year-old man escape a potential life sentence.

The significance of these words would not have been lost on him or his legal team. He was fighting charges he had raped and threatened to kill a teenage girl.

Normally ignorance is a weak defence and would be laughed out of court if elsewhere a defendant had argued: “Honestly, judge I didn’t know I had drank too much before driving.”

But because of botched legislation from a panicked Government in the summer of 2006 it is OK to have sex with a child — once she does not tell you her age.

This is because after “Mr C” walked into court to expose a loophole in the law every teenager must have the same decision-making ability as a sexually mature adult.

These are children who the law says cannot drive and cannot undergo medical treatment without parental consent. But they can seduce a mature man.

Proof of this has been dripping from criminal trials since 2006. But this week it was put into sharp focus when a man was deemed not guilty by the Central Criminal Court three years after he had sex with a girl aged 14.

The fact they had sex in the man’s Ford Mondeo was never disputed. He freely admitted it happened for 40 minutes. Afterwards he fell asleep.

The schoolgirl reacted differently. She went for an examination to Dr Eliza Joseph who remembered the schoolgirl was “crying and shaking”. Unfortunately it was not enough.

The girl did not have injuries consistent with trying to smash the window of a car with her elbow or bruises showing she was dragged through a car. Dr Joseph “wasn’t sure if she was definitely raped”.

She was speaking about the charge of rape applied to adults which demands the victim did not consent. Once this man said he did not realise her age, the onus was on her to prove she was the victim of an assault.

Effectively the jury only deliberated on whether this adult man had forced himself on the schoolgirl.

Prior to the 2006 statutory rape fiasco, having sex with a girl under the age of 15 was rape — no argument, no excuses and no justification. It was the absolute responsibility of the man to find out her age.

But instead of considering if this man had exploited a child the jury had to rule on if a 14-year-old had been a willing partner.

It is a situation where a man can walk into court and argue “what else could a red-blooded man do? Mea culpa judge, you know yourself, girls just look so old these days and sure I am only a man”.

Is it acceptable to undress a girl and have sex with her, but consider it just too awkward to ask her what age she is and if she is OK with it?

This is what happens when a panicked Government is more worried about calming public hysteria than protecting the safety of vulnerable children.