Consider reducing the age of consent, court rules

A juvenile court has called on lawmakers to consider lowering the age of consent to address the ever-increasing reality of sexuality among those under 16, and instead embark on a more effective sex education campaign.

The problem arose when a 15-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend found themselves in court, separately charged with defilement and sexual activity with a minor under 16.

Such a minor is considered a vulnerable person within the meaning of article 208AC of the Penal Code.

Their sexual relationship was revealed after the girl gave birth.

Social welfare officials reported the matter to the relevant authorities, triggering a police investigation that ultimately led to criminal charges against the minor parents. During the juvenile court proceedings, the boy and girl both chose to assert their right not to testify against each other in order to avoid self-incrimination.

“The court observed that this case was not the first of its kind

The prosecution did not produce any other witnesses or documentary evidence “that could in one way or another lead to a conviction,” observed magistrate Abigail Critien.

The alleged offenses took place when the boy was almost 16, meaning a few months before the current age of sexual consent. His girlfriend was just over 14 years old.

While delivering its judgment regarding the boy, the court observed that this case was not the first of its kind.

The magistrate had in fact presided over similar cases in which, in the absence of the “best evidence”, the court had no choice but to acquit the accused.

However, the crucial question that arises at this point is whether it is time for lawmakers to consider lowering the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14, in order to bring it in line with the age at which a young offender may be subject to criminal prosecution in court.

If not, should lawmakers at least consider decriminalization in cases where minors of approximately the same age and maturity level engage in consensual sex, the court suggested.

In submitting the case to the legislature, the court carried out a detailed study of the legal scenario applicable across Europe, focusing on each EU member state in order to better understand how society has evolved.

“We live in a world where, rightly or wrongly, we must admit that promiscuity is a reality and that the age at which minors or adolescents have sexual relations is lower and lower,” observed the magistrate Critian.

The European directive on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography deals with the age of sexual consent which varies between 14 and 16 years.

The subject also features in the Lanzarote Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.

After analyzing the criminal law of the 27 EU member state jurisdictions, the court concluded that the average age of consent in Europe was currently 14.25 years, well below the Maltese age limit of 16 years.

We live in a world where, rightly or wrongly, minors “grow up” faster and experiment with their sexuality at a younger age, observed the magistrate.

Given this reality, it would be wise to engage in a “useful and serious discussion” on this topic that would hopefully result in a lowering of the age of sexual consent to reflect today’s lifestyle.

This would also bring our system in line with the average age limit currently applicable in the rest of Europe.

Such modifications should be considered in cases where the alleged perpetrators are young adolescents, of the same or near the same age and personal development, who have no “malicious intent” or interest in testifying against each other. In Malta, minors consented to sexual relations and had no intention of “defiling” anyone.

All they wanted was just “another teenage experience and nothing more.”

Perhaps it was time to introduce “more filtering” and laws that were more selective in their approach, because it was a shame that underage teenagers who “after all only wanted to ‘have fun’ together” ended up being criminally charged in court.

In such circumstances, the police’s hands are tied and charges are filed against both parties.

But police and courts should focus their resources on crimes that deserve time and effort rather than situations that aren’t even considered criminal offenses in other countries.

And “a sex education campaign would be more effective than legal proceedings,” observed the magistrate, calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the age of consent and decriminalizing sexual activity in such scenarios.

The court also ordered that a redacted copy of the judgment, removing any reference to the identity of the parties, be sent to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice for review.

Attorney David Gatt was the boy’s attorney. Lawyer Edward Gatt appeared as a civil party.