Calls in Britain for Staggered Age of Consent to Protect 16- and 17-Year-Olds

Calls have grown in Britain for greater legal protection for 16- and 17-year-olds against sexual exploitation by much older adults. The calls followed allegations against Russell Brand and, separately, allegations against David Walliams, which he denies.

One route favoured by campaigners is a staggered, or graduated, age of consent, supported by some Labour MPs. Claire Waxman, the victims' commissioner for England and Wales, has called for serious conversations on the potential for legislative change.

Barrister Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in law regarding violence against women and girls, said a staggered age of consent means the law takes account of the age difference between sexual partners, rather than treating 16 as the point at which a child can legally consent to sexual activity with someone of any age.

Proudman said a sexual relationship between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old is fundamentally different from one between a 16-year-old girl and a 50-year-old man. She noted that a 16-year-old cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes, but someone decades older can legally have sex with them.

The barrister said the law does not adequately recognise the significant power imbalance between children and much older adults, particularly where grooming, financial dependence, celebrity status or emotional manipulation are involved. A move to staggered consent would place responsibility on the older adult, she said.

Proudman said this is not about denying young people sexual autonomy, but about recognising that consent must be understood in the context of age, maturity, vulnerability and power.

The Close the Consent Gap campaign proposes a staggered age of consent making it a criminal offence for a 16- or 17-year-old to consent to sexual activity with anyone more than three years their senior. Its founder, Layla Stone, said a consensual relationship between two teenagers close in age would remain lawful, whereas sexual activity between a 16-year-old and a 35-year-old would be prohibited.

Stone said every other framework of the law recognises 16- and 17-year-olds as children, and the campaign wants the law to recognise them as children who need protection in all frameworks. She said there could be a huge power imbalance between a 16-year-old living at home and a 21-year-old with money and independence.

The law elsewhere in the world is complex and varied, and some countries have extra safeguards for 16- and 17-year-olds. Canada recognises age difference as a factor in determining exploitation for this age group, and for 14- and 15-year-olds Canadian law criminalises any sexual activity if a partner is five or more years older.

Prof Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton, asked what evidence there is that such laws actually work to protect young people. He said there was no strong evidence that countries with different ages had completely different patterns of behaviour or outcomes, and that many cases are simply not reported, making the question difficult to answer.

Ingham said tinkering with the law could divert attention from other efforts, including better sex education, and risked young people avoiding contraceptive advice or other support if their relationship was deemed illegal.

Dr Sophie King-Hill, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham researching sexual behaviour of children and young people, said people were looking for fixes, blame and gaps in the law, but she also questioned where the evidence was that it worked. She said treating a law change as the solution to a complex social problem could be naive and could create a false sense of protection.