You fixed my headline for me. Or did you?


It is always interesting to see how people criticise the way the media have presented the news of the day. However, there is one particular critique which seems to demand some kind of reply. This is the suggestion it is somehow incorrect to report Tim Westwood has been accused of “having sex with a 14-year-old”. It is important we understand why the media is presenting the allegation in this way. Otherwise, people may wrongly assume the media is in some way minimising these very serious allegations. The critics say the media should have reported Tim Westwood has been accused “of raping a 14-year-old”. They argue the age of consent is 16. Therefore, they add, any child under 16 is incapable of consenting. Therefore they conclude, the allegation is actually one of rape.

Yet, this seemingly inescapable logic is not in keeping with the legal reality here in the UK. In fact, though not in law, a child under 16 could consent to sexual activity. The laws are there to protect children and not to prosecute under-16s who have mutually consenting sexual activity (see regional child protections procedures for the West Midlands here).Despite this, sexual activity with children under 16 is criminalised regardless of that factual “consent”. Where there is factual “consent”, the Crown Prosecution Service will charge the offence as ‘sexual activity with a child under 16’, as per s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003. (See CPS guidelines here). Sexual activity with a child under 16 but older than 13 is therefore not classified as rape (see Stuart Miller solicitors). For a s.9 offence, consent of the child or a reasonable belief is no defence. The only defence is a reasonable belief the complainant is over 16.