UK government to consider age of consent change after Brand allegations
The UK government says it will consider calls to change the age of consent after a woman publicly alleged that Russell Brand raped her when she was 16.
According to The Guardian, the UK government has said it will consider calls to change the age of consent. The move follows a decision by Mia Latter, now 37, to waive her right to anonymity and speak publicly. She alleges that she was orally raped by Russell Brand when she was a 16-year-old schoolgirl and he was 30. The Guardian describes Brand as a jailed comedian.
The Guardian reports that the deputy prime minister called any change to the age of consent a major step, but said the idea deserves careful examination and proper scrutiny before any decision is made.
Sky News reports that a government minister made a similar point, saying the question of changing the age of consent deserves proper consideration. Sky also reports that Latter is campaigning for a change in the law.
These are allegations, and nothing in the reporting establishes that they are true. It is not yet clear from the coverage what form any change would take, or when ministers would decide whether to pursue one.
Background
The age of consent is the age below which a person is treated in law as unable to agree to sexual activity. In England and Wales it is currently 16. The threshold has been in place in its present form since the late nineteenth century, when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised it for girls, and it was carried into modern law by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That act treats sexual activity with someone under 16 as an offence whether or not the younger person appeared to agree, and it sets out narrow defences for situations where both parties are close in age.
Separately, complainants in rape and certain other sexual offence cases have had default lifelong anonymity in England and Wales since the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. That protection exists to encourage victims to report, but the complainant can choose to waive it, which is what Latter has done.
Changing the age of consent is a serious legal step. Any proposal would sit alongside existing offences involving children, and lawmakers usually weigh several questions at once: whether the threshold protects young people as intended, whether it creates risks of criminalising teenagers in relationships close in age, and how a change would be enforced and explained. Changes of this kind typically pass through public consultation, parliamentary debate and detailed drafting, and they can take a long time to reach the statute book.
Why it matters
For young people, the age of consent is one of the clearest signals the law gives about what society expects of adults. Any change to it would affect schools, families, police, prosecutors and youth services, not just a single case. Ministers would need to show that a new threshold would make children safer, rather than only changing the symbolism of the law.
The story also raises a wider question about how historical allegations are handled. Campaigns of this kind can encourage others to come forward, but they can also make it harder for people to hear what is being claimed without treating it as settled. Keeping the discussion about policy separate from the question of any individual's guilt is important, especially because the allegations here remain unproven in the reporting.
For survivors, the decision to waive anonymity carries real costs and risks. How the government responds to a public campaign of this kind may shape whether others feel able to report abuse, and whether they believe the justice system will take their accounts seriously.
What to watch
The first signal will be whether the government sets out a formal review, consultation or timetable, or whether the statement remains a commitment to consider. Details of what is being examined, including whether any change would have effects on past cases, will be important to clarify.
Watch for any response from Brand or his representatives, which is not reported in these accounts, and for whether Latter's campaign secures support from parliamentarians, charities or legal experts. Also look for official comment on how the existing protections for complainants would apply in any future process.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Rulebook law, policy and institutions
Changing the age of consent is not a single edit. It would mean amending primary legislation, and the drafting would need to fit neatly with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, its reasonable belief provisions, and the protections that already exist for under-18s. Each of those pieces was designed to balance different risks, and moving one of them can shift the others in ways that are hard to predict.
That is why the phrase deserves proper consideration matters. The right path would run through formal consultation, expert evidence from prosecutors, youth workers and legal scholars, and detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Institutions are good at this work when they are given time and a clear remit. They are poor at it when a high-profile case pushes them to act quickly.
The most useful question for lawmakers is not whether the current threshold feels right, but what specific gap a change would close, and how the system would measure whether it worked.
The Skeptic open questions and weak points
Before anyone changes a number in the law, it is fair to ask what problem the change is meant to solve. The reporting does not yet explain what a new threshold would do that the current framework cannot. Is the weak point the age itself, or is it reporting, investigation and prosecution, which often fail victims at earlier stages?
There is also a question about evidence. Campaigns built around a single account, however serious, can generate momentum faster than the data needed to judge a policy. Supporters and critics alike should be asked what outcomes they expect, and how those outcomes would be tracked.
Finally, the allegations remain allegations. Nothing in this coverage establishes what happened, and good policy should not depend on treating an unproven claim as settled. Keeping those two questions apart is not a dismissal of the person speaking. It is what allows the debate to produce durable answers instead of reactions.
The Ground Level what it means for ordinary people
For most families, the age of consent is not a headline. It is a number that shapes conversations at home and in school about relationships, pressure, and what a young person is and is not able to agree to. Any change would land in classrooms and kitchens, where teachers and parents would need clear guidance on what the law now says and why.
For survivors, the decision to speak publicly is rarely simple. It can mean reliving events, facing strangers online, and weighing the risk of losing a protection that exists to make reporting feel safer. Watching a public figure take that step can encourage some people and frighten others. Services that support survivors should be ready for both reactions.
The most practical test of any policy is whether a teenager who is worried about abuse knows where to go, and whether an adult who was harmed as a child believes they will be heard. Those questions matter more to daily life than any single figure in the statute book.