Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) I beg to move, That this
House has considered the matter of child sexual exploitation and
consent to sexual intercourse. It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am delighted to see that the
Solicitor General is here to respond to the debate. I put on
record, however, that I am disappointed that no one from the Home
Office...Request free trial
-
(Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of child sexual
exploitation and consent to sexual intercourse.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I
am delighted to see that the Solicitor General is here to
respond to the debate. I put on record, however, that I am
disappointed that no one from the Home Office is here to
discuss the issue. It was intended that the Crime,
Safeguarding and Vulnerability Minister, my hon. Friend the
Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), would be
here, but she is not. However unintentional that may be, I
find it suggestive of a lack of interest in this topic—it is
not the first time that I have had difficulty in engaging the
Home Office on the issue.
Recent press coverage of child sexual exploitation and
grooming gangs in Telford has enabled many victims to come
forward. Some speak about historical crimes that they have
not previously reported; others speak of the enormous
challenges that they have faced in getting justice. I will
focus on the latter point.
Anyone listening to the debate will be astonished, as I was,
to learn that a child as young as 13 can be targeted and
groomed for sex with multiple men, and that those men can say
to police, by way of defence, “I had no reason to believe
that she did not consent. I had no reason to believe that she
was under 16.” In such circumstances, unless the victim can
show otherwise, the police may not have the perpetrator
charged with any offence at all. All the perpetrators have to
do is say, “The victim willingly met for sex and did not tell
me her age.”
It is worth pointing out that, under the Sexual Offences Act
2003, under-age sex is an offence and consent should not be a
factor, but in practice, the police can take a different
approach. That suggests that they may not fully understand
grooming and the power that a perpetrator can exert over a
victim who has been groomed. A child who is groomed into
acquiescence is not willingly and voluntarily consenting to
sex, but they may not get justice unless they can show that
they made the perpetrators aware of their age and that they
were unwilling.
Grooming is coercion, and it brings about a sense of control
over the victim. It can be subtle or indirect, or it may be
direct, by way of a threat to shame a child by exposing their
sexual activity to their parent, school or friends. Either
way, it is a process of psychological manipulation to force a
vulnerable child to do something that they do not want to do
and would not otherwise have done. That cannot be equated
with consent. Just because physical force is not present,
that cannot be grounds for the police to infer that a groomed
child is consenting.
How can the authorities assume that a child as young as 13
would willingly consent to sex with multiple men? Let us be
honest: in the cases I am talking about, the men are not in
the child’s social network—they are not young teenagers from
the child’s school, or known to the child’s parents or older
siblings. They are groups of adult men targeting young girls
through street grooming or in takeaways and restaurants. How
can the police possibly assume with good reason that the
targeted child consents simply because she did not refuse
sexual intercourse? Consent must be freely given without
duress or coercion. Consent is a voluntary act.
A young girl in Telford was groomed for sex with a group of
men. The grooming began while she was celebrating her 13th
birthday in a local restaurant. While she was still 13, she
became pregnant by one of those men, and her parents realised
what was going on and went to the police. The identity of the
perpetrators was not an issue and arrests were quickly made.
Two things went wrong, however: the police failed to identify
that the men were connected to each other, or that the child
had been groomed. The police treated the men as if each one
was in a separate relationship with the child. She was
treated as willingly engaging in sexual activity with men she
had voluntarily chosen to have a relationship with.
The offences the police were to consider in the case were
rape and engaging in sexual activity with a child under 16.
The police accepted that the perpetrators could not have
known from the victim’s actions that she did not consent and,
further, that the perpetrators reasonably believed that she
was over 16, as she had not disclosed her true age to them
until after she became pregnant.
It is clear in this case that the child could not articulate
in the testimony that she gave to the police the
psychological impact of grooming and coercion. When it was
put to her by the police, she accepted that she had not told
the perpetrators her age and that she had not refused sexual
intercourse. Despite not wanting to have sex with any of the
men, she accepted that they would not have known that she did
not want to have sex, so the police did not ask the Crown
Prosecution Service to bring charges. The grooming was
ignored: she had not said no, she had not been physically
forced and she was over 12, so it could not be rape, and as
she had not revealed her true age, the perpetrators had a
reasonable belief that she was over 16, so it could not be
sex with a minor.
The destruction and damage to the girl’s life and to her
family is impossible to communicate. The family exhausted
every avenue in their battle to get justice. One perpetrator,
who had sex with the child again while on bail, received
three and a half years for sex with a minor, but all the
agencies upheld the police’s position when complaints were
brought. The family were told that it was right that no
charges had been brought against the other perpetrators in
the case. How do the parents explain that to their daughter?
What message does it send to perpetrators if no charges are
brought in such a case?
I want to believe that that is a one-off, isolated case,
because under the law consent should not come into it at all.
However, the family wrote to the Independent Police
Complaints Commission, the CPS, the professional standards
board, the Home Office and the Prime Minister, and all the
parties that responded took the view that the police’s course
of action was correct.
-
(The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an
important local and national issue, and on attracting to the
debate the Solicitor General, who is probably the most
qualified person in Parliament to respond. The police can
always learn lessons, but charging decisions are often a
joint exercise with the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of
the cases she refers to are of vulnerable young adults who
are known to the local authority. Telford and Wrekin Council,
which is a key stakeholder in the issue, needs to get on with
conducting the independent inquiry, appointing an independent
chairman, restoring public confidence in the local council
and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve.
-
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the Solicitor General
is an eminent and learned colleague. I also agree with his
point about Telford and Wrekin Council. Now that it has
decided that it will have an investigation into child sexual
exploitation in Telford, it is imperative that it gets on and
appoints a chairman. We have already waited two months, and I
cannot see that anything has happened yet. I hope it will
take the opportunity to delay no longer on that. I thank my
hon. Friend for making that point.
To return to the case that I was raising, the family wrote to
all those different parties and the answer was that the case
had been correctly handled. The CPS sent a letter to the
family about the perpetrator who was responsible for the
victim’s pregnancy, which said:
“It was right that no charges have been brought in this
case.”
It explained why it came to that conclusion by saying that
“the prosecution must prove that a victim was not consenting
to the sexual intercourse and...that the person accused did
not reasonably believe that the victim was consenting.”
It went on to say that the victim
“was clear that although she may not have wanted sexual
intercourse…the suspect would not have been aware from her
actions at the time that she did not want to have sexual
intercourse…As such a charge of rape is not appropriate and
indeed the police did not seek a charging decision from the
CPS for an offence of rape.”
It then addressed the possibility of bringing a charge of
sexual activity with a child under 16, and said:
“The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
suspect did not reasonably believe the victim was over 16. We
could not prove this to the required standard. The victim
agreed that she had not told the suspect her age until after
she discovered that she was pregnant. I believe a jury may
have doubts as to whether the suspect is guilty. For these
reasons, it was right that no charges were brought against
this suspect.”
I repeat that it was judged
“right that no charges were brought against this suspect”.
The authorities were telling the father of a child victim of
abuse that there was no good reason to prosecute the men
responsible.
Anyone else looking at the facts of this case would see
grotesque and traumatic abuse and exploitation of a child by
multiple perpetrators; anyone else would understand the
lifelong impact that this horrendous crime would have on this
child and her family. But the police did not see that. When I
discussed this case with them, it was almost as if they
thought that it had been the child seeking out the
perpetrators and not the other way round. They did not value
the account given by the victim. They did not see an abused
child; they saw a young woman who had failed to reveal her
true age willingly engaging in sexual activity with multiple
men.
Social services became involved in the case after the event
and held multi-agency meetings; in fact, they held a number
of them. At every one of those meetings, what was discussed
was a behavioural contract for the child—a code of conduct
for the victim. It was the victim who was placed on a curfew
and not allowed out after school. I am sure that everyone in
the extensive cast list at those multi-agency meetings meant
well and wanted to protect the child from further harm, but
why was it her behaviour that was in question and not the
behaviour of the men who had committed the crime?
-
Mrs (Washington and
Sunderland West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech, and what I am
hearing is really concerning. The thought occurs to me that
when an older man seeks to have sex—consensual sex, as he may
think it is—with an obviously young girl, surely it is up to
him to find out the girl’s age, so that he can be confident
that she is old enough to engage in sexual activity, rather
than his just being blithely able to say, “I thought she was
old enough”. I assume that the girl in this case looked
young; surely the onus is on the adult to ensure that she is
of the age of consent.
-
Indeed—the hon. Lady makes an excellent point. She and I
would both have reached that conclusion and many members of
the public would, too, which is why I am glad that it has now
been placed on the record.
It is difficult for me to understand why it was the victim’s
behaviour that was in question and not the behaviour of the
men. It is almost as if it is an accepted norm that predatory
grooming and exploitation of young girls will happen, and
that it is the victim who must be controlled and not the
perpetrators. That is not a world that any of us want a young
person to grow up in. We all to want to see vulnerable young
people being protected, but does that really mean that young
girls should be prevented from going out after school? In
this case, the known perpetrators were released without
charge and without any monitoring of their behaviour. That is
more than just victim-blaming; it is a failure even to see
that there is a victim.
That suggests that something is very wrong, because how is it
that the police could fail to see an abused child when an
ordinary member of the public would see one? The police acted
as if this was a young woman freely entering into multiple
relationships with multiple older men, each of whom—the
police thought—did not realise they were doing anything
wrong, as they thought she was over 16. In fact, one of the
men suggested that he thought this 13-year-old was 18.
Are the police undervaluing or not even accepting the
testimony of victims while accepting the testimony of the
perpetrators, or is it just that they do not understand what
grooming is and the impact that it can have on the way a
child behaves? What is apparent is that there is no
requirement to consider the impact of grooming and coercion,
or the power that a perpetrator can have over a child victim,
when the decision is made about whether to ask the Crown
Prosecution Service to press charges.
Under sections 9 to 11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, sex
with a child under 16 is an offence irrespective of consent,
and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that. Given that
law, therefore, most of us would assume that in a case such
as this, there is no need for the victim to prove that she
did not consent or that the perpetrators knew her true age.
In reality and in practice, however, when a child is 13 or
over, certain defences can be used, and indeed are used, that
are readily accepted by the police without the defendant
having to do anything more than simply tell the police their
account of events. It must be wrong that individual police
officers can, in effect, act as judge and jury and decide not
to ask the CPS to charge, particularly in a case such as this
one where some very serious offences have been committed.
Grooming is the means by which someone is forced to do
something against their will. How could anyone believe that a
child who is being groomed has free will to decide whether to
have sex with their abusers? That is why we need to have an
investigation in Telford and why I am delighted that there
will now be such an investigation. Otherwise, how are we
going to work out what needs to be done, so that the police
and the authorities in general can respond differently in the
future? I am glad that the local council has finally agreed
to commission such an investigation, although it is due to
the work of journalists, who brought some of these issues to
light, that the investigation is now happening. I am very
pleased that the press has the freedom to report on these
issues and bring them out into the open.
I was going to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and
Horncastle, to review the specific case that I have referred
to today. I took details of the case to the Home Secretary in
March, delivering them in person to the Home Office. I have
not yet had a response, and I should be most grateful to
receive one, if not from the Solicitor General then from the
Home Office in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary, who is also Minister for Women, will take
the time to read the details of the case, which I have given
to the Home Office, and indeed the report today’s debate.
In a case where it is clear that a child is the victim of
multiple acts of abuse by multiple perpetrators, there should
be no reason for that child to show that the abusers knew she
was 13 years old. Why should she have to show them that she
did not consent to sexual activity, and why, in this
particular case, was no evidence of grooming given to the
CPS? I know that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt,
but in a case such as this the prosecution is not even being
given the opportunity to prove guilt, because no charges were
brought. The victim and her family were dismissed by the
authorities, more or less on the say-so of the male
perpetrators.
In light of what we now know about grooming and child sexual
exploitation, I ask the Solicitor General to consider whether
it is time to update both the guidance to the police and
perhaps the Sexual Offences Act 2003, particularly when it
comes to the definition of consent. As I have said, consent
cannot be implied by the absence of a refusal or the absence
of physical force. Coercion and force can and do take many
non-physical forms.
As more such cases come to light and we find out more about
what is happening—the case that I have referred to is a
recent case, not a historic one—it is essential that the
police actively look for evidence of grooming that can they
can then pass on to the CPS, which has to make the decision
about charging. However, if the CPS does not have the
evidence of grooming, then it cannot take it into
consideration.
Most children in such circumstances will be unlikely to know
that what has happened to them is grooming or coercion, and
they certainly cannot be expected to volunteer that
information if all they are asked is, “Did you make it clear
to the suspect that you did not want to have sex?”
We have come a long way in our response to this crime, but we
must now consider whether the law is protecting children and
young people from grooming and exploitation. As each case
comes to light, we cannot just go on wringing our hands and
saying how horrific it is that different cases are emerging
up and down the country. If the law does not protect our
children from being groomed and targeted for sex, we must
update it.
I thank the Solicitor General for listening to what I have
had to say today. It is only by listening to the experiences
of MPs in their constituencies that the voices of victims are
properly heard, and that is why I am disappointed that the
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is not here
today. The full picture can emerge only by our listening to
the voices of the victims, and we need to understand how the
law operates in practice, not just how it is written on the
statute book. Only by understanding that can we take the
necessary action to prevent this abuse happening to more
victims. I would be most grateful if the Secretary General
could set out what action can be taken in cases such as the
one I have described.
-
Mr (in the Chair)
I had been expecting, as Chairman, that a Home Office
Minister would be here, but we have an excellent substitute:
the Solicitor General.
11.19 am
-
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
May I put on the record the reason for my presence at this
debate, bearing in mind my ministerial responsibility as
superintendent of the Crown Prosecution Service of England
and Wales? As this debate has been quite rightly focused by
my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) upon
questions of law and the prosecution of these offences, it is
entirely appropriate that I am appearing in Westminster Hall
today.
May I assure my hon. Friend that I have already had an
important conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for
the Home Department, who is the Home Office Minister with
responsibility for safeguarding? Indeed, Home Office
officials are here today with me.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on
securing this debate. I know how much she has campaigned for
the victims of child sexual exploitation in her constituency
and how she has been a tireless champion of securing an
independent inquiry into systematic issues that have resulted
in a whole cohort of young people in her local area being
failed by the authorities after having to suffer appalling
abuse.
I speak not only as a Minister; I have many years’ experience
in prosecuting just this type of offence. Having taken what
is now the Serious Crime Act 2015 through Parliament as a
Minister, I am proud that in that Act we updated the law to
remove old-fashioned references to child prostitution in
acknowledgement of the fact that when it comes to consent we
are dealing with children. These are children who deserve the
protection of the law, and to apply to them the standards
that can be applied to fully mature adults is a betrayal of
their vulnerability and a failure to safeguard them. Over and
above everything, the issue must be one of safeguarding.
Underlying some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised is
perhaps a failure, at times, by the respective agencies and
their representatives to understand that safeguarding must
come first and therefore that the point of view of the
child—the victim—is paramount, rather than considerations of
another kind. If people understand that, we will make even
further progress.
I have been part of a number of inter-ministerial groups on
child sexual exploitation, from my time as a member of the
coalition Government right through to this year, and I have
been impressed by the sense of purpose the Government have
shown in seeking to co-ordinate and improve the work that
needs to be done to safeguard children. We have had new
legislation on safeguarding and a robust response to the
appalling incidents in Rotherham, Rochdale and other local
areas that shone a light on the problem often encountered by
young people in getting their story regarding child sexual
exploitation heard and believed.
My hon. Friend raised a specific case, of which I am aware,
and I know that she has written to colleagues in the Home
Office. She will get a response; I will undertake to ensure
that by writing to her. It would perhaps be invidious for me
to make detailed comment on the merits of the case, as a
further inquiry investigation is under way, but I take on
board her points. She drew the important distinction between
consent and knowledge of age, both of which issues I will
deal with now, in general terms.
When a case meets the threshold, the police should refer it
to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.
That decision is then made by an independent prosecutor in
accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors and CPS legal
guidelines. On consent, it is important to draw a distinction
between consent in fact and consent in law. In fact, the
threshold for absence of consent in law is somewhat more
rigorous. A child under the age of 16 cannot in law consent
to a sexual act. Therefore, a person is guilty of a child
sexual offence such as sexual activity with a child contrary
to the 2003 Act if sexual activity takes place and the child
is either under 13 or is under 16 and the perpetrator does
not reasonably believe them to be 16 or over.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of reasonable belief
and I assure her that the test is rigorous and takes into
account all the evidence in the case. Proof of the age of a
child is of course a simple, straightforward matter—date of
birth can easily be proved. The question of reasonable belief
often depends on the circumstances, but I can assure my hon.
Friend that the old chestnut of, “I didn’t know her age. She
didn’t tell me,” does not mean that the police and the
prosecution are suddenly discharged of any responsibility to
bring the case. Wider circumstances need to be considered and
assessed. Each case must stand or fall on its facts, and the
perception that somehow at all times the burden should be on
the child to prove their position is not correct. It is
important that we as Ministers and parliamentarians get that
message out there, so that young people know that if they
come forward they will be taken seriously and treated
properly.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs
Hodgson) knows well from experience—we have worked together
on such issues and I am grateful for her presence and her
intervention today—that it is vital that young people know
that we have moved on from the appalling response we saw in
Rotherham and other local authorities and that that approach
is no longer acceptable. The courts themselves, in
sentencing, now readily acknowledge that. The idea that
somehow a child can consent in any way to sexual activity,
where consent is not an element of the offence, is no longer
relevant in sentencing. Indeed, the courts no longer give
defendants any mitigation or concession for so-called implied
consent on the part of a victim who is a child. That has been
an important development as well.
In the context of offences of rape, other than the rape of a
child under 13 for which consent is not necessary, the
absence of consent must be proved regardless of age. The
definition of consent is that a person agrees by choice and
has the freedom and capacity to do so—and there comes the
issue. Again, it is important that we send the message out
clearly that the age and circumstances of the complainant—the
victim—must be taken into account in understanding age and
capacity.
Acquiescence is not consent, and that message is vital,
particularly in the context of some of the child sexual abuse
of which we are all aware. The fact that a vulnerable or
young person has been groomed starkly raises the reality that
he or she may have been placed in a position in which they
have merely acceded to sexual activity, rather than having
given real, meaningful consent. The despicable actions of
those who prey upon such young people should, and have, come
under scrutiny when considering the issue of genuine consent.
Even in the absence of clear evidence of grooming, a victim
under the age of 16 is likely to be considered vulnerable,
regardless of whether the defendant believes them to be
older. Evidence that a victim has been drugged or is so
intoxicated that they no longer have capacity to consent may
also support the absence of consent per se.
-
Mrs Hodgson
I am not privy to all the facts of the case, but in the light
of what the Solicitor General said about the age of consent
being 16, I really struggle to understand why the men are at
large and not behind bars. I am curious about that.
-
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to reiterate the point that
has been made. I cannot comment on the specific case, but it
is clear to me that we have moved a million light years from
perpetrators being able to get away with such things with
impunity.
-
Did my hon. and learned Friend say that there will be a
review into the case I have put before the Home Office?
-
The Solicitor General
There is indeed a further investigation as a result of my
hon. Friend’s letter and I have committed to writing to her
about the outcome.
The tools that the prosecution now has are considerable. We
even have tools relating to sending sexual communications to
a child ahead of any grooming, which came into force last
year, and for young people between the ages of 16 and 18 we
also have preventive measures, such as sexual risk prevention
orders. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the
matter. I undertake to respond to her more fully in relation
to the specific offence and I reassure her that this
Government, and this Solicitor General, take child sexual
abuse extremely seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
|