The Catholic Church and local authorities have been criticised after trying to claim child sex abuse victims "consented" in a bid to avoid compensation payouts.
Lawyers who represent some of the victims have told the Sunday Telegraph that the defence is more frequently being used by private schools, religious groups and local authorities when trying to defend compensation claims.
....
The Sunday Telegraph has seen documents for two cases where the defence was employed.
One claimant was told by lawyers for the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark that his abuse, which included rape and began when he was 15, "actually occurred in the context of a consensual relationship (albeit one the Claimant in retrospect now appears to regret)".
The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told this newspaper that the use of the defence felt "insulting". "I was below the legal age of consent anyway and there's a grooming element to that kind of situation. It was totally disregarded and it made me feel really small," he said.
The case was eventually settled for £80,000.
In another case, a pupil was making a claim following sexual abuse by her teacher. The abuse began when she was under 16 and continued into adulthood.
The local authority, Cambridgeshire County Council, claimed in defence documents that it was not liable for abuse which took place after the age of 16.
It said: "On her own account the Claimant voluntarily sought out contact with [the teacher] and considered that she was in a relationship with him. If that is correct, after she had obtained the age of 16, the Claimant consented to sexual acts with [the teacher] and those acts ceased to be assaults."
The pupil eventually received £550,000 in compensation from the authority.
What alarms me is how you are always the one immediately jumping in to justify these horrible things, or feebly trying to disprove what we all know to be true. Every time, same account. Just like with the last Podesta article. You are clearly here with a disingenuous agenda. The fact that you are shilling for these sinister people disgusts me. Just so you know, we all see you for what you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I shill for no one. I don't like fake news. If you think that was an attempt at justification, you need to read what I wrote.
That website has a history of dishonest articles and clickbait headlines. When you follow the links to the real reporting you often find something different that what has been claimed.
You shill for no one? You mean you do this shit for free? FYI one of the Rotherham girls was precluded from givingbteatimony and having her day in court because it was contended that she’s given consent at 14 years of age -this was during the Criminal Trial - not a compensation claim. It’s disturbing. And how long before they start to apply this allegedly considered ‘consent’ from that of compensation claims to criminal cases? It’s a slippery slope. Children can not be considered to have consented to sex. Ever. Even in the case where they think they did.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
This is basically a defense laywer claim made when damages are being made. It's not a blanket claim in general.
The UK still has age of consent laws that could apply.
This website relies on reporting by The Telegraph. In both examples The Telegraph cited, the children did receive compensation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/catholic-church-local-authorities-criticised-claiming-child/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg
....
ChangingPerspectives ago
What alarms me is how you are always the one immediately jumping in to justify these horrible things, or feebly trying to disprove what we all know to be true. Every time, same account. Just like with the last Podesta article. You are clearly here with a disingenuous agenda. The fact that you are shilling for these sinister people disgusts me. Just so you know, we all see you for what you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Are_we_sure ago
I shill for no one. I don't like fake news. If you think that was an attempt at justification, you need to read what I wrote. That website has a history of dishonest articles and clickbait headlines. When you follow the links to the real reporting you often find something different that what has been claimed.
DerivaUK ago
You shill for no one? You mean you do this shit for free? FYI one of the Rotherham girls was precluded from givingbteatimony and having her day in court because it was contended that she’s given consent at 14 years of age -this was during the Criminal Trial - not a compensation claim. It’s disturbing. And how long before they start to apply this allegedly considered ‘consent’ from that of compensation claims to criminal cases? It’s a slippery slope. Children can not be considered to have consented to sex. Ever. Even in the case where they think they did.
ChangingPerspectives ago
Incorrect.