Lady Butler-Sloss stands down from child-abuse inquiry "This is a victim-orientated inquiry and those who wish to be heard must have confidence that the members of the panel will pay proper regard to their concerns and give appropriate advice to government.

[....]
 “Where both partners are aged 10 or over, but under 14, a consenting sexual act should not be an offence. As the age of consent is arbitrary, we propose an overlap of two years on either side of 14.

“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.

“The Criminal Law Commission should be prepared to accept the evidence from follow-up research on child ‘victims’ which show there is little subsequent effect after a child has been ‘molested’.

“The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.

“The present legal penalties are too high and reinforce the misinformation and prejudice. The duty of the court should be to inquire into all the relevant circumstances with the intention, not of meting out severe punishment, but of determining the best solution in the interests of both child and paedophile.”

 [....]

                NCCL report written for the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1976






Retired high court judge, has resigned as chair of the panel that is due to examine the extent to which public institutions failed to investigate allegations of child abuse after admitting that she had failed to take into account a family conflict of interest.

Hours after the former solicitor general Vera Baird called on Butler-Sloss to stand down because her brother served as attorney general in the 1980s, when reports of child abuse were allegedly not examined properly, the former judge issued a statement announcing that she would withdraw from the post.

Butler-Sloss said she had been honoured to be invited to chair the inquiry. But she added: "It has become apparent over the last few days, however, that there is a widespread perception, particularly among victim and survivor groups, that I am not the right person to chair the inquiry. It has also become clear to me that I did not sufficiently consider whether my background and the fact my brother had been attorney general would cause difficulties."

The retired judge had faced intense criticism from victims' groups because her brother, the late Sir Michael Havers, was attorney general during the 1980s – the period due be examined by the panel.