Girl duped by man who was actually a woman..
Discussion
unpc said:
I've read this and still don't understand what the crime is. What's the court case over? She consented to sex didn't she? I'm sure I've had hot dogs that contained no real meat but I didn't take them to court over it.
She consented to sex with a male who she believed were named 'Kye'. She did not consent to sex with a female named Gayle Newland. The victim was deceived as to the identity of the person she was having sex with. La Liga said:
The complainant (CP) was befriended by a 'male' named 'Kye' on Facebook.
Kye is really Gayle Newland.
The CP communicates with 'Kye' on Facebook and on the telephone, forming a relationship.
Newland becomes friends with the complainant 'in real life', claiming to be a friend of 'Kye'.
The CP is unable to detect 'Kye' and Newland have the same voice.
'Kye' arranges to have sex with the complainant in specific circumstances i.e. at a hotel with a blindfold and a mask and then makes an excuse to leave quickly after.
This repeated but with 'kye' eventually going to the CP's flat where Newland was discovered to be 'Kye'.
An odd one for sure, but the CPS have concluded there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
There could be CCTV at the hotel showing someone looking remarkably like Newland. Did Newland use her car to get there, is this on CCTV with the registration plates etc?
I wonder how "Kye" managed to avoid the CP discovering that "Kye" had breasts. Kye is really Gayle Newland.
The CP communicates with 'Kye' on Facebook and on the telephone, forming a relationship.
Newland becomes friends with the complainant 'in real life', claiming to be a friend of 'Kye'.
The CP is unable to detect 'Kye' and Newland have the same voice.
'Kye' arranges to have sex with the complainant in specific circumstances i.e. at a hotel with a blindfold and a mask and then makes an excuse to leave quickly after.
This repeated but with 'kye' eventually going to the CP's flat where Newland was discovered to be 'Kye'.
An odd one for sure, but the CPS have concluded there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
There could be CCTV at the hotel showing someone looking remarkably like Newland. Did Newland use her car to get there, is this on CCTV with the registration plates etc?
Mask, blindfold, tie her up? Strict "no touching" rule?
And a prosthetic which must have been strangely cool to the touch for an angry body part? And which emits, err, nothing?
Many unanswered questions...
La Liga said:
he consented to sex with a male who she believed were named 'Kye'. She did not consent to sex with a female named Gayle Newland. The victim was deceived as to the identity of the person she was having sex with.
Is that much different to telling a woman in a bar you own your own business and have a yacht ?Greg66 said:
And which emits, err, nothing?
Many unanswered questions...
You have not been watch the same videos I haveMany unanswered questions...
Edited by Pesty on Thursday 10th September 00:45
Pesty said:
La Liga said:
he consented to sex with a male who she believed were named 'Kye'. She did not consent to sex with a female named Gayle Newland. The victim was deceived as to the identity of the person she was having sex with.
Is that much different to telling a woman in a bar you own your own business and have a yacht ?eharding said:
As long as you're happy that you only discover when it's far, far too late that whilst she may have been impressed by your business acumen and yottie credentials, she is in fact a trucker from Sheffield called Steve indulging in his favourite hobby.
I wouldn't be happy but I just don't understand what I could do legally about it. As the guy above asked what specific law has been broken it was consensual. Do we have a law about deception to get sex?
Also I think there was a long thread about that recently can't remember what the general consensus was.
Pesty said:
La Liga said:
he consented to sex with a male who she believed were named 'Kye'. She did not consent to sex with a female named Gayle Newland. The victim was deceived as to the identity of the person she was having sex with.
Is that much different to telling a woman in a bar you own your own business and have a yacht?RYH64E said:
Wouldn't you just try to forget the whole sorry episode and hope your mates never found out what had happened?
If you read the story you'll see her mate is the one who f
ked her!So if a pre op tranny has sex with a bloke and he finds out shehe used to be a bloke is that sexual assault?
Edited by iambeowulf on Thursday 10th September 04:21
Johnnytheboy said:
Mate of mine had a press cutting about a similar case stuck on his student bedroom door in c.1992, except in this case the relationship had gone on for something like a year.
The article referred to - and it was this that amused my friend so much - the male impersonator using "some kind of implement" as a penis substitute.
The protagonist in that story went to my school!!The article referred to - and it was this that amused my friend so much - the male impersonator using "some kind of implement" as a penis substitute.
La Liga said:
es, it's a little more fundamental deceiving someone about your whole identify and gender!
Morally of course it is. In legal terms I'm genuinely asking how that would work?Woolly hat, tape my bits down, make myself look like a man to get my end away.
Substitute that with expensive clothes, rent a flashy car each time I take her out, borrow a mates rich house, get my end away.
In the latter could I still end up in court?
I'm trying to understand the legal basis for the crime here?
Consent can be complex and is judged on a case-by-case basis. The CPS page on consent literally covers exactly what we're talking about and explains it better than I can: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual...
CPS said:
The third case, Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051, differs from those referred to above. Unlike Assange and F, both of which turned on an express condition, McNally was concerned with the material deception of the victim by the Appellant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed McNally's appeal against her conviction on six counts of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the SOA and allowed her appeal against sentence. The "undeniably unusual" facts considered by the Court involved the relationship between two girls which, over 3 years, developed from an internet relationship to an "exclusive romantic relationship" that involved their meeting and engaging in sexual activity. From the start McNally presented as a boy, a deception she maintained throughout the relationship. Examining the nature of "choice" and "freedom", the Court determined that "deception as to gender can vitiate consent".
The Courts reasoning was as follows:
"Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."
Demonstrating that the circumstances in which consent may be vitiated are not limitless, the Court explained:
"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."
The Court of Appeal dismissed McNally's appeal against her conviction on six counts of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the SOA and allowed her appeal against sentence. The "undeniably unusual" facts considered by the Court involved the relationship between two girls which, over 3 years, developed from an internet relationship to an "exclusive romantic relationship" that involved their meeting and engaging in sexual activity. From the start McNally presented as a boy, a deception she maintained throughout the relationship. Examining the nature of "choice" and "freedom", the Court determined that "deception as to gender can vitiate consent".
The Courts reasoning was as follows:
"Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."
Demonstrating that the circumstances in which consent may be vitiated are not limitless, the Court explained:
"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."
La Liga said:
creampuff said:
Deceived by a bright pink strap-on.
I wish you were the QC presenting the prosecution case. "Ladies and Gents of the jury, the victim was deceived by a bright pink strap-on." 
1974nc said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Mate of mine had a press cutting about a similar case stuck on his student bedroom door in c.1992, except in this case the relationship had gone on for something like a year.
The article referred to - and it was this that amused my friend so much - the male impersonator using "some kind of implement" as a penis substitute.
The protagonist in that story went to my school!!The article referred to - and it was this that amused my friend so much - the male impersonator using "some kind of implement" as a penis substitute.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff