Recent allegations involving high-profile figures Russell Brand and David Walliams have intensified calls for legal reforms to better protect teenagers from sexual exploitation. Advocates and some Labour MPs are now pushing for a staggered age of consent, a concept that would adjust legal protections based on the age gap between partners. Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for England and Wales, has stated that the nation needs to engage in serious conversations regarding this potential legislative shift.
Charlotte Proudman, a barrister specializing in violence against women and girls, argues that current laws treat 16 as a universal threshold for consent regardless of the partner's age. She contends that this approach fails to acknowledge the significant power imbalance between a child and a much older adult. Proudman highlighted that a relationship between two teenagers close in age is fundamentally different from one involving a 50-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl.
Proudman noted that while 16-year-olds are currently barred from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, they can legally consent to sexual activity with adults decades older. She believes a staggered system would place the responsibility on the older adult to justify the relationship, rather than forcing a teenage complainant to prove coercion or grooming. This change, she said, would recognize that consent must be understood within the context of maturity, vulnerability, and power dynamics.
The Close the Consent Gap campaign, founded by Layla Stone, proposes making it a criminal offense for a 16 or 17-year-old to consent to sexual activity with anyone more than three years their senior. Under this model, consensual relationships between teenagers of similar age would remain lawful, while a partnership between a 16-year-old and a 35-year-old would be prohibited. Stone emphasized that other areas of law already treat 16 and 17-year-olds as children who require protection.
Stone pointed out that significant power imbalances can exist even between a 16-year-old living at home and a 21-year-old who has financial independence. She argued that the law should reflect the reality that these individuals are still children who need safeguards in all legal frameworks, not just some.
Globally, laws regarding this issue vary widely. Some countries have built-in safeguards for this age group. For instance, Canadian law considers age difference a factor in determining exploitation. For 14 and 15-year-olds, Canada criminalizes sexual activity if the partner is five or more years older, providing a clearer framework for assessing consent in close age gaps.
However, academic experts have raised questions about the efficacy of such changes. Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton, noted that there is no strong evidence showing that different countries with varying ages of consent have significantly different patterns of sexual behavior or outcomes. He suggested that the lack of clear data may be due to many cases simply not being reported.
Ingham warned that tinkering with the law could divert attention from other critical efforts, such as improving sex education. He also expressed concern that young people might avoid seeking contraceptive advice or other support if their relationships were deemed illegal under a new staggered system.
Dr. Sophie King-Hill, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham, observed that people are often looking for quick fixes and gaps in the law after high-profile cases. While she is not opposed to the concept in its entirety, she cautioned against viewing it as a simple solution to a complex societal problem. She noted that grooming and coercion do not suddenly begin at age 16.
King-Hill argued that creating a new legal threshold could provide a false sense of protection. There is also a risk that children and young people may hesitate to come forward with complaints for fear of having broken the law herself. She emphasized the need for careful implementation to avoid inadvertently making the situation worse or oversimplifying the complexities of youth sexual health and safety.
