Boy loses under-age sex legal bid

Lord Justice Pill said the prosecution did not breach human rights laws

A teenager convicted for having under-age sex with a girl of the same age has failed in a High Court bid that he was discriminated against.

The boy was 15 when he was found guilty by Llandudno magistrates.

But two High Court judges said it was right that girls should not face prosecution "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not".

Human rights lawyers described it as a landmark ruling.

The teenager claimed he had suffered unlawful discrimination because he was prosecuted and the girl was not, even though she consented.

Now 17, he was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse under the 1956 Sexual Offences Act in 2003.

It followed his admission that he had sex with the girl, also 15, in Conwy, North Wales.

He was convicted by Llandudno magistrates and given a 12-month supervision order.

Public morals

The High Court heard that at first an allegation of rape was made but after being interviewed by police at length the girl denied it had been.

The boy's counsel Gareth Roberts argued that the law was "automatically discriminatory against males under 16" and was "incompatible" with the Human Rights Act of 1998.

He said: "Both consent - yet only the male can be convicted under the 1956 Act. This makes the 15-year-old boy an offender and the 15-year-old girl a victim, despite her consenting to sex."

Mr Roberts said the human rights convention protected the right to private life and covered acts of consensual sex.

He also argued that recent laws now made it an offence for anybody under 16, regardless of gender, to have sexual contact.

But dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Pill and Mrs Justice Cox said a law aimed at preventing sexual contact between 15-year-olds, even by consent, did not breach the convention.

It was also justified on the grounds of public morals and the public interest.

Different treatment of the sexes under the 1956 Act was also justified "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not," Lord Justice Pill added.

Human rights lawyers said Tuesday's case was important because, if the boy had won, other youths convicted in the past could have sought pardons or to have their own convictions quashed.