After a seven-day trial, a 54-year-old teacher from Manchester, England was acquitted of five counts of molestation of a minor, despite admitting to frequent sexual contact with the pupil in question over the course of nine months. The teenager, said by prosecutors to have been 16 when the sex first occurred, was legally old enough to consent, but the teacher, who worked in pastoral care at a local high school, broke the British law against “sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust.”
Notice how, with that description, I’ve kept you in the dark about the parties’ genders?
The teacher’s name is Deborah Lowe. She’s a woman. The pupil is a boy.
Should that make a difference? It did (or so it appears) to the members of the jury. My best guess is that they’d have thrown the book at a male teacher for the same infraction.
A teacher accused of having sex with her teenage pupil has been cleared of all charges. Deborah Lowe, 54, was on trial … in Manchester where she denied five counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust.
The prosecution had alleged that sex began when the boy was 16 — and although old enough to legally consent, Lowe broke the law by having sex with him when being a person in a position of trust — his teacher.
She had admitted having sex with the teenager, after being “flattered” by the attention of the boy, and was having a “midlife crisis” when they began a relationship.
Tawdry. And wrong. As is this:
The court heard that in a jokey WhatsApp message to a friend, Lowe told her she was not having sex with the boy and described herself as a “mother” figure. But she added: “… If in the too distant future he wants to discuss the merits of an older woman I will be there for him” followed by emojis of a bottle of baby oil and a pair of handcuffs. …
She maintained the relationship with the boy, 35 years her junior, only became sexual after he had left school and he was aged 17.
Lowe had given up her pastoral-care position to go travel and “explore her faith.” Propriety and the law dictate that she should have avoided exploring the inside of a teenage boy’s pants, although the accused, at the time, apparently didn’t think it was a big deal — and ultimately, neither did the jury.