He had sex with a child. But he wasn't found guilty because she was "well-developed".

A man has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage girl — because she looked older than her years at the time they had sex.

Trigger warning: This post deals with child sexual assault and may be triggering for some readers.

A man who had sex with a 13-year-old has been acquitted of child rape by a Swedish court because his victim was “well developed”.

The girl had run away from foster care, and met her perpetrator in a playground, explaining to him she had no money or food.

The man invited her to his home, where she accepted his invitation for a drink, Daily Beast reports.

The pair had sex — a fact the man denied to authorities, until DNA evidence confirmed his semen was found in her underwear.

When the man was found not guilty, the teenager lodged an appeal. But it was thrown out of court this week after the courtroom was shown footage of the girl’s police interview — which led the court to decide apparently, that the man “could not have known” how old she was due to her developed figure.

The ruling has drawn international criticism to Sweden’s soft laws on sex with minors. According to The Daily Beast, Sweden requires a defendant must “know” or have “reasonable grounds to believe” the victim is under 15 years old — the nation’s age of consent.

Related content: Survivor of gang rape win compensation for herself and 24,000 others.

Sadly, a ruling on these grounds is not isolated, with judges all over the world acquitting rapists due to the victim looking beyond their years.

The Daily Beast notes a case in London this year, where a judge accused a 16-year-old girl of “grooming” her 44-year-old teacher, and a Montana trial where a 47-year-old teacher was let off because his 14-year-old victim looked older than her chronological age.

In Australia, some states allow a defense where the accused believed that the minor was above the legal age of consent, which is 16 or 17 in most states.

Executive Officer of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre Karen Willis told Mamamia that while some states had a “subjective measure” to make out this mistaken identity defence, that measure was not strict enough.

“The subjective measures is the defendant just has to say, ‘I thought he or she was up for it, i thought they were over an particular age’,” she said.

The objective test, by contrast, requires the defendant to describe why they thought that person was over the age of consent — and they have to convince a jury that a reasonable person would have drawn the same conclusion.

“They have to show why they were mistaken. If they try to say that they’ve picked up a person in a pub because they believed they were over 18 — well a reasonable person would have checked,” Ms Willis explains. “The licensed premises (excuse) has often been a defence that’s used in a lot of states and territories.”

Ms Willis explains that under Australian law, a person under the relevant state’s age of consent is unable to give consent at all — no matter whether they appear “willing” to have sex.

“So it absolutely doesn’t matter if the 12 or 14-year old is all over the offender, or flashing or wearing provocative clothes, or all of the other excuses that we hear,” she said.

“It’s an adult responsibility not the child’s responsibility to say, ‘that is not appropriate, I’m not going to have sex with you’.”

The Swedish teen’s lawyer, Göran Landerdahl, now intends to take the case to Sweden’s Supreme Court, hoping to highlight the problems associated with the country’s rape laws.

If this post brings up any issues for you, or if you just feel like you need to speak to someone, please call 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service. It doesn’t matter where you live, they will take your call and, if need be, refer you to a service closer to home.

Are you concerned about victim-blaming in Australian courts?