Kissing and cuddling illegal between retards?

Note that the man is described as having "learning difficulties". Does
this mean that people whose IQ is below a certain level must maintain
a total, sterile celibacy, or is kissing legal between people whose IQ
differs by less than a certain number of points?

(Note that the defence lawyer seems to lean towards the prosecution
and that the case came to light after a complaint of vigilante action,
which seems to have been dealt with quite lightly.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
JAIL SENTENCE FOR KISS AND CUDDLE MAN
Report by Ian MacKellar

Hunts Post, UK: 29 September 2005
http://www.huntspost.co.uk/content/huntspost/news/story.aspx?brand=HPTOnline&category=News&tBrand=HPTOnline&tCategory=newnews&itemid=CMED29%20Sep%202005%2014%3A08%3A31%3A073
Or, http://tinyurl.com/97d89

A HUNTINGDON man has a received a suspended prison sentence for
kissing and cuddling a 30-year-old woman with severe learning
difficulties.

When a vulnerable adult is involved, kissing and cuddling is regarded
as "sexual activity" under the new Sexual Offences Act 2003, which
came into force last year.

Peterborough Crown Court heard that James Edward Whittaker-Williams,
49, of Bushey Close, first met the woman - said to have the mental age
of a small child - when he found her distressed in the street.

He spoke to her and they met again about a year later, when she
approached him in the street, greeted him by name and started a
conversation.

In due course, they went to his home for a cup of tea, said Michael
Fowler, defending. She asked him whether he would be her boyfriend,
and he promised to think about it.

The next time they met, he agreed to try it, Mr Fowler said.

He had kissed her on the lips "and she kissed him back", he added.
They had also hugged.

They both denied that he had kissed her on the neck, but Judge
Nicholas Coleman found that lovebites must have been caused by him.

David Lee, prosecuting, said a psychological assessment of the woman
showed she was vulnerable to potential exploitation. "She does not
have the capacity to make a choice and communicate it effectively," he
added. "She functions at the level of a very young child."

Mr Fowler said his client's guilty plea reflected the fact that,
although he did not consider it at the time, he could reasonably have
been expected to realise that his girlfriend had severe learning
difficulties. His client also suffered from learning difficulties.

"He now realises it was wrong, and has had no further contact."

The offence had come to light only because Whittaker-Williams had
complained to the police about the woman's brother head-butting him,
causing injury, for which the brother had been cautioned by the
police.

"People have also threatened to burn down his house, and his windows
have been smashed."

Judge Coleman told him: "It is clear that the sexual activity in this
case is limited to one occasion.

"Although there was no predatory act on your part and no entrapment of
her, using her intellectual deficiency to your advantage, an approach
by a female in the street would put a normal person on notice. You
clearly took advantage of that approach."

The judge said many potentially aggravating features were absent from
the case. There was no predation, no corruption, no trauma, no lasting
harm, no repeated act, no force or coercion, and he was not someone
who had done something similar before.

But Parliament had demanded that the offence attracted a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment.

"I accept that you have had substantial difficulties in your own life.
You have your own learning difficulties, and it's clear that
supervision is required.

The judge made a suspended supervision order for two years, and
ordered that Whittaker-Williams remain on the sex offenders' register
for the same period.

In view of the threats made to him, the judge supported his wish to
move away from Huntingdon.

The court heard that thugs had smashed windows in Whittaker-Williams'
home and threatened to burn down his house.

Under Section 30(1)(4) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came
into effect in April last year, kissing and cuddling is regarded as a
sexual activity which, if it involves someone with a mental disorder
that impedes choice, is now an offence.

The judge said it was the first offence of its kind on which he had
had to pass sentence.
.