Consent

Not for the first time, the Crown Prosecution Service is making up its own laws. Provided with this opportunity, it is time for Parliament to tidy up the shambolic law on sexual offences.

First, the age of consent should effectively be raised to 18, by making it a criminal offence for anyone to commit any sexual act with or upon any person under that age who was more than two years younger than herself, or to incite any such person to commit any such act with or upon her or any third party anywhere in the world.

The maximum sentence would be twice the difference in age, to the month where that was less than three years, or a life sentence where that difference was at least five years. No different rules for “positions of trust”, which are being used against male, but not female, 18-year-olds looking after female, but not male, Sixth Formers visiting universities.

And no provision, as at present, for boys to be prosecuted at any age, even if they are younger than the girls involved, whereas girls have to be 16. The law on indecent images is also enforced in totally different ways in relation to boys and girls of the same age, or even of boys who are younger than the girls. That must end.

At least unless they decided as adults to seek to make contact with their children, the sometimes enforced financial liability of male victims for pregnancies resulting from their sexual abuse ought also to be ruled out. How’s that for victim-blaming?

Secondly, it ought to be made a criminal offence for anyone aged 21 or over to buy or sell sex, with equal sentencing on both sides.

No persecution of girls and very young women whose lives had already been so bad that they had become prostitutes. No witch-hunting of boys and very young men who were desperate to lose their virginities. But the treatment of women and men as moral, intellectual and legal equals.

Thirdly, the replacement of the offences of rape, serious sexual assault, and sexual assault, with aggravating circumstances to the general categories of offences against the person, enabling the sentences to be doubled. The sex of either party would be immaterial. There must be no anonymity either for adult accusers or for adult complainants. Either we have an open system of justice, or we do not.

There must be no suggestion, in this or in any other area, of any reversal of the burden of proof, which the changes to the rape law at the behest of Harriet Harman by the supine Parliament of the High Blair Era have already gone a long way to compromising, with the CPS now proposing to finish the job unilaterally. Remember, that change was brought to you by the same people who brought you the Iraq War. But for this one, they did not even demand a nominal ban on foxhunting.

(Harman is a marvel of the age. Massively unpopular, totally discredited, and a creature out of time even if she were neither of those things, she had made such an impact as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party that she was not initially appointed to its General Election team, and instead had to barge her way onto it publicly.

If Jon Cruddas’s supporters had done as she advised her supporters to do and not exercised their second preferences, and I myself voted only for Jon in the several capacities in which I was and am eligible to vote in such elections, then he would have won.

Gordon Brown more or less supported Harman, but there was never the slightest suggestion that he was going to appoint her as Deputy Prime Minister. Nor will Ed Miliband, who could usefully emulate Brown and dispense with the position. However, if someone from another party ends up having to be one, then there ought also to be another, from Labour. Step forward, Jon Cruddas.)

And fourthly, the definition of obscenity as material depicting acts that were themselves illegal, or which was reasonably likely to incite or encourage such acts. Sentencing would be the same as for the illegal act in question in each case.

American-style legislation for internally administered “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of evidence” tests to sexual assault allegations at universities or elsewhere must be banned by Statute. It is incompatible with the Rule of Law to punish someone for a criminal offence of which he has not been convicted.

As for teaching things in schools, how is that curriculum time currently being filled? Apply the Eton Test. Would this be taught in a school that assumed its pupils to be future Prime Ministers or Nobel Laureates? If not, then instead fill the hours with something that is. Teach Latin. Someone will.