Key facts
- Claire Waxman, victims' commissioner for England and Wales, called for "serious conversations" on legislative change.
- Barrister Charlotte Proudman said she supports a staggered age of consent placing responsibility on the older adult.
- The Close the Consent Gap campaign proposes an offense for sex with a partner more than three years older.
- Campaign founder Layla Stone said a relationship between two teenagers close in age would remain lawful.
- Roger Ingham of the University of Southampton said there is no strong evidence a staggered law protects young people.
- Sophie King-Hill of the University of Birmingham warned of a false sense of protection and deterred reporting.
Allegations against Russell Brand and, separately, David Walliams have led to calls for greater legal protection for 16- and 17-year-olds from sexual exploitation by older adults, according to a report published on November 13, 2026. A staggered consent law is one route favored by campaigners and supported by some Labour MPs.
Claire Waxman, the victims' commissioner for England and Wales, called for "serious conversations" on the potential for legislative change. Charlotte Proudman, a barrister specializing in law on violence against women and girls, said a graduated age of consent would make the law take account of the age difference between sexual partners rather than treating 16 as the point at which a child can legally consent to sex with someone of any age. She said a relationship between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old is fundamentally different from one between a 16-year-old girl and a 50-year-old man.
Proudman said the law does not adequately recognize the power imbalance between children and much older adults, particularly where grooming, financial dependence, celebrity status or emotional manipulation are involved. A change, which she supports, would place responsibility on the older adult rather than requiring a teenage complainant to demonstrate grooming, coercion or exploitation, she said. "This is not about denying young people sexual autonomy," she said. "It is about recognising that consent must be understood in the context of age, maturity, vulnerability and power."
The Close the Consent Gap campaign 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. Its founder, Layla Stone, said a consensual relationship between two teenagers close in age would remain lawful, while sexual activity between a 16-year-old and a 35-year-old would be prohibited. She said every other framework of the law recognizes 16- and 17-year-olds as children, and that there could be a huge power imbalance between a 16-year-old living at home and a 21-year-old with money and independence.
The body says the legal landscape elsewhere is complex and varied. Canada recognizes age difference as a factor in determining exploitation for 16- and 17-year-olds, and for 14- and 15-year-olds criminalizes any sexual activity if a partner is five or more years older.
Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton, asked what evidence exists that a staggered law works to protect young people. He said there is no strong evidence that countries with different ages have completely different patterns of sexual behavior or outcomes, but that the question is hard to answer because many cases are not reported. He said tinkering with the law could divert attention from better sex education and risk young people avoiding contraceptive advice or other support if their relationship was deemed illegal.
Sophie King-Hill, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham researching the sexual behavior of children and young people, said people were looking for fixes, blame and gaps in the law, but also questioned the evidence. She said changing the law should not be confused with solving the problem, that grooming, coercion, manipulation and abuse of power do not suddenly begin at 16, and that the change risked creating a false sense of protection and deterring young people from coming forward for fear they had broken the law.