Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) welcomes the widespread public interest in our December 2025 report, ‘A Civil Society Review of the Diversion and Alternative Measures for Children in Conflict with the Law in Jamaica’.

The passion for protecting our children is encouraging, and we are committed to open, informed discussion. To support this we outline below exactly what JFJ has put forward and why, based on evidence and child rights principles.

We emphasise the following to ensure there is no doubt or confusion as to the organisation’s positions:

• We fully support maintaining the age of consent at 16. This protects young people from adult exploitation and ensures appropriate access to sexual and reproductive health services.

• We do not promote or encourage early sexual activity. The most effective way to address adolescent sexual behaviour is through prevention and education. JFJ strongly advocates expanding comprehensive sexual education, building on Jamaica’s health and family life education (HFLE) programme to help young people delay initiation, understand consent, and make safe choices.

• We support empowering parents so they are equipped to provide age-appropriate and factual conversations to their children.

• Decriminalising truly consensual peer activity protects children. It avoids the harm caused by criminal charges in non-exploitative cases while keeping all coercion, force, and predation fully punishable under the law.

• Decriminalising consensual sex is not a licence to have sex. The law was intended to protect children from predators, not to turn children into criminals for acting on normal adolescent feelings. A policy regime properly designed to protect children should centre on counselling, education, and guidance, not place minors who engage in genuine consensual peer-to-peer activities before an adversarial judicial system.

The Challenge Under Current Laws

Jamaica’s Sexual Offences Act applies a blanket approach to all sexual activity involving a person under 16 without a statutory close-in-age provision. This means:

• Even consensual acts between peers can lead to serious charges. This was not Parliament’s intent.

• Boys are disproportionately affected due to societal norm of seeing girls as victims and boys as perpetrators or seeing boys as always being the initiators of sexual encounters, and perhaps due to how some offences are defined.

• The Child Diversion Programme is overwhelmed by matters that require preventative social interventions rather than court proceedings. For example, more than half of offences for which children have been referred for diversion involve sexual offences, many of which appear to be consensual peer interactions, thereby diverting resources from children with greater behavioural challenges that could lead to involvement in gang activities or other serious issues.

Furthermore, diversion is not guaranteed. While the programme is valuable, police have discretion only for certain offences and, as our research shows, utilisation among officers is low. Courts can also order diversion, but this is not assured. Bringing a child into an adversarial court system causes unnecessary trauma, stigma, and disruption for young people. For instance, an act such as digital penetration cannot be diverted by police; the child must be charged with grievous sexual assault, brought before the courts, and have an attorney request diversion.

Common scenario: Two 15-year-olds in a mutual relationship engage in consensual intimate acts. Under current law, while both children could be charged, it is typically the boy who faces arrest, charges, repeated court appearances, and long-term consequences, even though no exploitation occurred. JFJ’s position is that neither the boy nor the girl should be charged with an offence.

What JFJ Has Put Forward in the Report

The primary focus of our report is a review of the Child Diversion Programme and recommendations to strengthen alternative measures for children in conflict with the law. The report does not prescribe a detailed close-in-age model, as the focus was primarily on the diversion programme. However, to address the overwhelming burden of consensual peer sexual cases on the diversion system, the report strongly suggests introducing balanced, tiered close-in-age exemptions, noting the below as one option:

• A primary provision: No offence when partners are less than two years apart in age (both under 16) so the matter would not go before the courts.

• A further provision: When the age difference exceeds the less-than-two-year gap but is up to five years, the conduct would be prosecutable, but a defence against prosecution could be raised when the activity is truly consensual, there is no authority or dependency, and the younger partner is at least 12 to 14 years old.

The reference to “12 to 14” sets the minimum age for the younger partner. This ensures greater safeguards for younger children. Accordingly, no child under the age of 12 can ever “consent” to peer sexual activity, and any such case would remain fully criminal with no defence available. In other words, a 14-year-old could not claim a defence if the other child was 11 years old. This approach is designed to cover typical teenage peer relationships while providing robust protection against risks for younger children. Any act involving force, coercion, exploitation, or power imbalance remains fully criminal and prosecutable — no exceptions.

We note The Gleaner and Jamaica Observer publications, from our perspective, have — perhaps unintentionally through positioning of excerpts from our report — led to interpretations that do not reflect these safeguards. JFJ’s suggestions are always grounded in maximum protection for the most vulnerable.

Canada’s Approach: A Strong Model Worth Considering

JFJ also points to Canada’s well-established close-in-age framework as an effective example that Jamaica could also consider:

• Age of consent: 16

• For a younger partner aged 14 or 15: There is no criminal offence if the sexual partner is less than five years older. For example, a 15-year-old with a 19-year-old.

• For a younger partner aged 12 or 13: There is no criminal offence if the sexual partner is less than two years older. For example, a 13-year-old with a 14- or 15-year-old.

These close-in-age exemptions do not apply when there is exploitation, trust, authority, or dependency.

In place since 2008, this tiered system has successfully protected children from predators while preventing the criminalisation of teenage relationships. A balanced approach like this would protect young people from the trauma of unnecessary criminal proceedings in non-harmful cases. JFJ urges that we shift emphasis to prevention through enhanced education, counselling — via Child Protection and Family Services Agency and schools — and support services.

JFJ will release a detailed policy brief exploring both models to inform parliamentary review. We value every voice in this conversation and are here to provide facts, answer questions, and work towards solutions that best serve Jamaica’s children.

Jamaicans for Justice is a non-governmental human rights and social justice organisation.