I guess I'm a little dense then, because I don't find it particularly clear. Sooz said, " ... offences can be committed by anyone, male or female, over the age of 10, which is the age of criminal responsibility.... It is an offence to intentionally engage in sexual touching with a young person aged 13, 14 or 15. .... " First of all, where does that leave eleven- and twelve-year-olds (or those younger)? And are we really to believe that if, for instance, two eleven-year-olds engage in "sexual touching" that they are committing a criminal offence? And, in this case, that the twelve-year-old could be prosecuted for engaging in "sexual touching" "with a young person aged 13, 14 or 15" (and how "young" is a fifteen-year-old in relation to a twelve-year-old anyway?).

Further: "A person may claim in their defence that they believed the young person to be over 16." So the twelve-year-old could use this defence?

Oh, apparently not: "Intentional sexual touching of a young person under 13 is an absolute offence. This means there can be no defence in such a case that it was believed the person was over 16."

This is the kind of stuff I was referring to when I said that posters had "cited law that seems to imply adult/minor activity". I find it hard to believe that there is no proviso or common-law precedent that exempts children from prosecution under these laws. If the law that Sooz gave is the only relevant law, then that's the law. But it's unclear as to how or why it would apply to childish or adolescent sexual activity.