Stuart hall --not guilty 15 rapes

Not having a good year those CPS peeps - are they :)

Very difficult to prove one way or the other. Same as trying to prove that the girls sere lying.

The girls in this case were not lying. It seems more that the cps went with a rape charge instead of other charges they could have proved more easily.

Seems the sex with one of the girls was consensual, although under age after 12 months from the act, no charges of unlawful sex can be carried forward. The CPS realised it was rape or nothing. Strange.

The girls in this case were not lying. It seems more that the cps went with a rape charge instead of other charges they could have proved more easily.

how do you know that?????

good question

He hardly comes out of it well ; admitting to having 'consensual' sex with 13 year olds

He played his Joker, which doubles it up to 26.

Parties at Hall's Cheshire mansion were the "stuff of legends"

I haven't been following this case closely so please forgive me if I get one or two things wrong.
However, my limited understanding of the law would lead me to think that he won't have been found guilty of 'consensual sex' with a 13yr old girl. Perhaps lesser activities may have taken place leading to full sex AFTER the age of sixteen. In effect, 'grooming'.
My reason for saying this is that a 13yr old girl CANNOT 'give her consent' because she has not reached the legal age (16yrs) when she is ABLE to consent. That is why it is called 'The Age of Consent'. It exists to protect children from themselves as much as from predators as they are not considered sufficiently mentally developed to MAKE a decision of such magnitude.
Allowances will be made in cases where both parties are of a more similar age because neither party might be 'using' the other'
However (again), this is NOT the case the case when a mature adult has sex with a girl who is unable, by law, to give her consent. THAT IS RAPE! It is classed as STATUTORY RAPE. There does not need to be any violence involved.

So, I would have to guess that he has admitted to inappropriate 'touching' etc but NOT to full, penetrative sex with a 13yr old.


My personal opinion is that the girls (as they were then) were telling the truth. In fact, I think that is the case in the vast majority, maybe even ALL, of these similar cases.

Naydam , he was not 'found guilty of 'consensual sex' with a 13yr old girl' but he did admit to having sex with a 13 yo

He was not charged with that , as he couldn't be .This is because the law at the time he was doing it classified this as 'unlawful sex' if the girl 'consented' . That offence could only be prosecuted at the time if it was reported within 12 months and it wasn't .

The trial was because the girls said they never consented at all .

Thank you, Tobermory. I didn't realise that there was a 12 month time limit at that time. As I said, I haven't been following the events closely. I guess that this 'loophole' will have been pointed out.
It DOES explain quite a lot.