Perhaps you could offer an example of when you think it's appropriate to deal with rape by way of a caution.

Right, well apparently, the term isn't used in UK law, but the concept is sex with anyone who is underage.

I do recall the prosecution (in Wales, IIRC), a few years ago, of a 15-year-old male for having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. She wasn't prosecuted. He was put on the Sex Offenders' Register.

I would imagine it's when all the evidence has been gathered & considered and the CPS has come back with a zero chance of getting a conviction

It's not, though. In the UK, it's only classed as rape if the person is less than 13 years of age. It's obviously still an offence to have (consensual) sex with a person who is aged between 13 and 15, but the offence is not rape.

In order to be able to give a caution, the perpetrator must have to admit their guilt. If a person confesses to having raped another person, I'd imagine the chances of a successful conviction would be pretty good.

It's a matter or proportion. I didn't suggest they not be found guilty nor that they were not sanctioned in some way. I suggest when we lock them up for that yet issue cautions as reported in article I linked to then the law [iwill[/i be held in contempt by its citizens.

It's not just the sentencing either. It's the effort and expense that went into it all in comparison to the crimes being let off with a caution.

No, mainly because I don't possess any of the facts appertaining to this careless bit of reporting and I suspect that the reporter didn't either or didn't care to ask the very relevant follow-on question.

I'll make one up for you if you like though - a male is accused of rape by a female who he has been in a relationship with, he denies it stating it was consensual, the CPS opinion is that it will be one word against the other in court and put it to the accused that he can accept a caution with no record on the sex offenders list, or take his chance in court.

There, I've made that up completely and am not even sure if its a valid example, but its plausible, the truth is that it will have been done after careful consideration by the agencies concerned and isn't just some copper pushing a file across his desk and saying "Oh I can't be d with this, give him a bloody caution, I'm off home".

It's not entirely unknown for an "innocent" party to be "persuaded" that it would be simpler to cop a caution than face the prospect of trial with all the attendant publicity and stigma

Not to mention the fact that some people who have been raped or sexually assaulted are often unwilling to go through the whole court process.

A caution may only be issued in cases where the offender has made a 'clear and reliable admission' (of his guilt) and there is a 'realistic prospect' of a conviction. In the made up example you have given, neither of these conditions are met. Indeed, the CPS won't take any case to court on one person's word against another. There are two tests that are applied before they accept a case for prosecution

I'm quite sure it isn't the decision of one "can't be d" copper, but it's been fairly well documented over a period of several years that the criminal justice system is often found wanting when it comes to how they deal with sex crimes and victims of sex crimes.

I'm not some hysterical Daily Mail reader looking for something to feel outraged about, and I have genuinely considered a range of potential circumstances where this course of action may be appropriate. I just can't for the life of me think of a situation where a person has admitted rape, where there is evidence that they have committed rape, and it's appropriate to administer a police caution.

That may be true but equally it might not be the reason. We don't know but either way that doesn't make any difference to the fact serious crimes are resulting in cautions but the Hulme case was like the trial of the century. The cautions also relate to other offences such as drug dealing which don't need a victim for prosecution to take place in any case.

I like everyone on here do not know the ins and outs of why there are cautions for rape. What I would say though is that the police, CPS, social services, victims and guardians are all consulted in the process when required. I like most can't think of many reasons why you would be cautioned for rape. But at the risk of wording this wrongly I would throw in two possibles.
The teenage boy who thinks his girlfriend is over the age of consent. There are many examples of this. Is that rape? Well if she is under 13 yes, but there is a grey area from 13 to 16 depending I would say on the age of the suspect. I have no examples to share but I would imagine its hard to make the right decision in these cases.
Also think of adults with mental ages of children. They have sex. Is she of the correct mental ability to consent? I don't know enough to be able to say, but I am sure that would be a tough call.
I could be way off the mark here, but sadly its not as black and white as the press seem to think.

Going back to Pryce and Huhne. I fail to see what holding them any longer will serve to do. They have done 8 weeks I believe. That's a full 8 weeks more than I could ever do. They will not reoffend for that I am certain. Their lives as they knew them are ruined. Lets move on.
As for trial of the century as I think it was referred. That's the press for you not the criminal justice system. Within court they were treated in exactly the same way as anyone else.

The m,an's admittedly a Tory scumbag toilet, but Grayling explained that

Consensual sex with a person between the ages of 13 and 16 is not classed as rape.

I can see that point, but I then begin to wonder why a perpetrator would confess to rape if the victim was unwilling to appear in court. If the case rests on the victim's testimony and the defendant knows that she won't testify, why cough to it?