In English law consent still matters unless the child is very young indeed. The imaginary 11 year old in this story would be young enough that it's always rape and if the defence (or more likely the accused personally) tries to bring up consent they'll get shut down by the judge because it's irrelevant. But for a teenager consent matters and a defence barrister would be doing their client a disservice if they didn't seize any opportunity to suggest their client believed there was consent.
It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a 15 year old, but there's considerable gap between the likely tariff for "Had sex with a 15 year old" versus "Rape". The maximum tariff for having sex with a 15 year old is not inconsiderable (14 years) but it's far short of the tariff for rape (life imprisonment).
In the case of a 15 year old either might be plausible for prosecutors depending on what evidence they have. If it's clear there was no consent, it'd always make sense to charge rape regardless of whether they're sure they can persuade a jury the defendant knew the victim was under age - but if consent is tricky, or especially if the victim is prepared to testify for the defence that they consented, then you need solid proof the defendant knew they were under age or it won't go anywhere.
> but if consent is tricky, or especially if the victim is prepared to testify for the defence that they consented, then you need solid proof the defendant knew they were under age or it won't go anywhere.
This last sentence is a bit wrong.
Where the child is under 16 and has not consented the CPS recommend prosecuting for rape because that's a more serious offence. Where the child is under 16 but is "consenting" the offence of rape cannot be proved (because rape requires lack of consent), so the CPS recommend charging for section 9 sexual activity with a child.
> Conversely, when reviewing cases involving children under 16 and 18 prosecutors should select more serious charges involving proof of absence of consent over those contained in sections 9 to 12, where all the elements can be proved. So, for example, section 1 rape should be preferred to section 9 sexual activity with a child under 16 where the elements of rape are satisfied.
That’s true, laws differ on this, and in some cases there is a legal distinction not because statutory rape is OK but because forcible rape is so much worse. In the US, the scenario might be very similar to what you describe except with explicit plea bargaining between the prosecution and defense. In fact the prosecution would probably try to charge forcible rape anyway just so they can negotiate down to statutory rape.
It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a 15 year old, but there's considerable gap between the likely tariff for "Had sex with a 15 year old" versus "Rape". The maximum tariff for having sex with a 15 year old is not inconsiderable (14 years) but it's far short of the tariff for rape (life imprisonment).
In the case of a 15 year old either might be plausible for prosecutors depending on what evidence they have. If it's clear there was no consent, it'd always make sense to charge rape regardless of whether they're sure they can persuade a jury the defendant knew the victim was under age - but if consent is tricky, or especially if the victim is prepared to testify for the defence that they consented, then you need solid proof the defendant knew they were under age or it won't go anywhere.