A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime.

District Court Judge Rosemary Davey’s comments have sparked calls from child protection authorities to teach all school students about the laws of sex and consent, and that they risk imprisonment for having sex under the age of 17.

The South Australian Association of School Parent Clubs president Jenice Zerna said the state’s education curriculum must work to combat the sexualised imagery bombarding children every day.

“We would also like to see schools provide ‘are you aware’ letters to parents when they contact them about upcoming sex education classes,” she said.

“It is as important that parents know the laws as it is for students and young people.”

Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston said education helped children sort through the sexualised imagery that “inundated” them every day.

“Children are seeing sexually-explicit, very adult messages that promise nirvana — and all kids are curious and want what they’re missing out on.”

Judge Davey made her comments during the case of Sasha Pierre Huerta, 21, of Walkerville.

He pleaded guilty to one count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl, 13, in February this year after an all-ages party in the city.

Huerta had met the girl earlier that month at Marble Bar, sparking sexually explicit Facebook interactions during which she claimed she was 14 years old.

Judge Davey said Sasha Pierre Huerta, 21, was not a predator and his teenage victim “was looking for” a sexual encounter.

In transcripts viewed by The Advertiser, Judge Davey says teens living in our “overtly sexualised” world are ignorant of the maximum seven-year jail term for underage sex.

“Regrettably — and I don’t live in an ivory tower — that kind of criminal conduct is happening day in, day out,” she says.

“In fact, if you ask most 17-year-olds or 16-year-olds whether they know (underage sex) was an offence carrying seven years’ imprisonment, they would die with their leg in the air.

“It’s just crazy, in my view, that we maintain this law and we do not pass the message on out into the community.”

The court was told the girl dressed “like a 23-year-old” and “presented herself as a woman”, attending bars and events she could not lawfully enter.

“This is a girl who was not a girl who was sitting at home just putting Barbie dolls away,” Judge Davey said.

“This is a girl who was out there wanting to party and mix with older people, who put herself out there.”

The transcript records the fact a school class was sitting in the court’s public gallery as sentencing submissions were heard.

Lawyers for Huerta said their client and the girl agreed to have sex — even though she could not lawfully consent, and he was aware of her youth — in his bed at his home.

Judge Davey said she doubted the school class in the gallery understood their burgeoning sexuality could lead to criminal charges.

“I’m not suggesting that it’s not a serious matter for a man, although he is a young man too, to have sexual intercourse with a person underage,” she said.

“I would like to do a straw poll of the young people sitting in court at the moment — I’m not going to — to find out how many of them realise it’s a serious crime to even have touching of the genital area under the age of 17.

“It’s just that I find it extraordinary that there’s never public discussion about (the fact) we have a whole generation of young people having sex ... which is a crime.”

In sentencing, Judge Davey told Huerta it was “a crazy mixed up world we live in”.

“The reason why the law is as it is, is to protect young people from themselves,” she said.

“While the media and the world we live in might encourage young people to think they are in control of their bodies and their sexuality from a very young age, you know ... that with sexual development one does not necessarily have the maturity to make decisions about sexual intercourse at an early age.”

Judge Davey said Huerta’s offending was not predatory and that he was “deeply shocked, upset and contrite” about his actions.

She imposed a two-year jail term, suspended on condition of a two-year good behaviour bond.

“One of the reasons why I suspended the period of imprisonment is because I think it is most unlikely we’ll see you back here again,” she said.

“You have your whole life ahead of you. Be good.”

-----

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

The legal age of consent for having sexual intercourse in South Australia is 17.

The age of consent rises to 18 if one of the parties is in a position of authority over the other, such as a teacher, priest or doctor.

Having sex with a child under the age of the age of 17 has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ jail.

Having sex with a child under the age of 14 has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

It is not illegal for two 16-year-olds to have sex together.

It is also not illegal for a 16-year-old to have sex with someone they believed was 17 or older.

Any person convicted of a child sex charge is subject to the becomes a registrable offender under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act.

----

Sean Fewster Analysis: Teach them law of love

JUDGE Rosemary Davey has bemoaned the lack of public debate about underage sex, but her sentencing of a 21-year-old male offender quickly inflamed community passions.

Reader reaction to the story on advertiser.com.au yesterday was swift, vehement and almost entirely focused on Her Honour’s comments about the female victim.

Describing a 13-year-old girl as “looking for” an illicit encounter was highly controversial, and justifiably so — it goes right to the heart of some old and very ugly issues in Australian society.

What must not be forgot as the debate rages is Judge Davey’s other point: About how our sons and daughters are ignorant of the legal consequences of promiscuity.

Many millions of dollars have been spent teaching our youth the risks of sexually transmitted infections, the risk of teenage pregnancy and the spectre of “stranger danger”.

Yet for all the sex education going on in schools and youth groups, precious little — if any — time is spent discussing the criminality of teenage liaisons. Increased education is surely the answer — it will not stop every teen rendezvous, of course, but it might just cause a few growing sober minds to stop and think.

I’ve lost count of the young men and women I’ve seen, in the past 12 years, go before the state’s courts due to hormone-fuelled love affairs.

Many of those youths were arrested because a disapproving parent or grandparent went to the police and reported their offspring’s hanky-panky.

It sounds silly, almost laughable, yet these children can leave the court with a conviction, a criminal record and a lifetime listing on the sex offenders’ register.

Hefty punishment, indeed, for the sort of teen indiscretion sung about on the radio and splashed across film screens.