A teenage woman impersonated a teenage man and secured the consent of another young woman on that basis to engage in digital penetrative activity.
Held: A victim’s consent to a sexual penetration might be destroyed by a defendant’s deception as to gender. Vitiating deceptions are not limited to deceptions relating to features of the offence.
Sir Brian Leveson P, giving the judgment of the court, concluded at para. 26 that the nature of the sexual act was ‘on any common-sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by the defendant into believing that the latter is male.’ The complainant ‘chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellant’s deception.’
Leveson LJ, Kenneth Parker, Stewart JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1051, [2014] 1 QB 593, [2014] 2 WLR 200, [2013] 2 Cr App R 28, [2013] WLR(D) 256
Bailii, WLRD
Sexual Offences Act 2003 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Cited – Lawrance, Regina v CACD 23-Jul-2020
Consent not removed by Lie as to Vasectomy
The defendant appealed from his conviction of rape. He had represented to his victim that he had had a vasectomy to secure consent which the court found had been vitiated.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Could a lie about fertility negate . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2021; Ref: scu.511219
