Girl duped by man who was actually a woman..
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
I guess this was the argument being employed in the transgender thread a couple of weeks back.What level of deception (or omission of facts) is required to invalidate consent.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 10th September 10:06
Moonhawk said:
I guess this was the argument being employed in the transgender thread a couple of weeks back.
What level of deception (or omission of facts) is required to invalidate consent.
Similar to the sex procured by an undercover police officer in some of the animal rights groups that has been in the news recetnly. Does the deception of the man mean that consent would have been withdrawn. What level of deception (or omission of facts) is required to invalidate consent.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 10th September 10:06
I suspect there will be more and more of these cases.
RYH64E said:
The part I really don't understand is the thought process that led to deciding to report the 'crime' to the police. Wouldn't you just try to forget the whole sorry episode and hope your mates never found out what had happened? Having the details published in the Daily Mail for your friends and family to read must be mortifying.
Well it was rape so reporting to the police was the right thing to do. VeeDubBigBird said:
RYH64E said:
The part I really don't understand is the thought process that led to deciding to report the 'crime' to the police. Wouldn't you just try to forget the whole sorry episode and hope your mates never found out what had happened? Having the details published in the Daily Mail for your friends and family to read must be mortifying.
Well it was rape so reporting to the police was the right thing to do. Bluebarge said:
VeeDubBigBird said:
RYH64E said:
The part I really don't understand is the thought process that led to deciding to report the 'crime' to the police. Wouldn't you just try to forget the whole sorry episode and hope your mates never found out what had happened? Having the details published in the Daily Mail for your friends and family to read must be mortifying.
Well it was rape so reporting to the police was the right thing to do. moorx said:
This case sounds entirely like nonsense. The defence questions seem so blindly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that I just cannot believe the victim. How could you be so daft? Watching TV for hours at a time with a blindfold on? Scars? Get real.
Baryonyx said:
This case sounds entirely like nonsense. The defence questions seem so blindly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that I just cannot believe the victim. How could you be so daft? Watching TV for hours at a time with a blindfold on? Scars? Get real.
That's why I'm not sure how it got to court - I thought there had to be a realistic chance of conviction etc.If the jury take the view "How could she not have known it was a woman?" does that mean they automatically have to go with Not Guilty?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Baryonyx said:
This case sounds entirely like nonsense. The defence questions seem so blindly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that I just cannot believe the victim. How could you be so daft? Watching TV for hours at a time with a blindfold on? Scars? Get real.
That's why I'm not sure how it got to court - I thought there had to be a realistic chance of conviction etc.If the jury take the view "How could she not have known it was a woman?" does that mean they automatically have to go with Not Guilty?
The CPS won't take it to court if there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction or they risk having the Judge bin the case after they've presented the prosecution evidence.
Moonhawk said:
La Liga said:
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.
I guess this was the argument being employed in the transgender thread a couple of weeks back.What level of deception (or omission of facts) is required to invalidate consent.
CPS on conditional consent said:
Section 74 has recently been considered by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a series of cases where ostensible consent in relation to sexual offences was considered not to be true consent, either because a condition upon which consent was given was not complied with or because of a material deception (other than one which falls within section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 [SOA]). The resultant judgments identified three sets of circumstances in which consent to sexual activity might be vitiated where the condition was breached.
In Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin), an extradition case, the President of the Queens Bench Division considered the situation in which Mr Assange knew that AA would only consent to sexual intercourse if he used a condom. Rejecting the view that the conclusive presumption in section 76 of the SOA would apply in these circumstances the President concluded that the "issue of materiality ...can be determined under section 74 rather than section 76".
On the specific facts the President said:
"It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003...."
In R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), the High Court examined an application for judicial review of the refusal of the DPP to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the complainant by her former partner. "Choice" and the "freedom" to make any particular choice must, the Court said, be approached in "a broad commonsense way".
Against what the Court described as the "essential background" of the complainant's partner's "sexual dominance" and the complainant's "unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands", the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant, the result, the Court stated was:
"She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape".
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."
In Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin), an extradition case, the President of the Queens Bench Division considered the situation in which Mr Assange knew that AA would only consent to sexual intercourse if he used a condom. Rejecting the view that the conclusive presumption in section 76 of the SOA would apply in these circumstances the President concluded that the "issue of materiality ...can be determined under section 74 rather than section 76".
On the specific facts the President said:
"It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003...."
In R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), the High Court examined an application for judicial review of the refusal of the DPP to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the complainant by her former partner. "Choice" and the "freedom" to make any particular choice must, the Court said, be approached in "a broad commonsense way".
Against what the Court described as the "essential background" of the complainant's partner's "sexual dominance" and the complainant's "unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands", the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant, the result, the Court stated was:
"She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape".
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."
Bluebarge said:
VeeDubBigBird said:
RYH64E said:
The part I really don't understand is the thought process that led to deciding to report the 'crime' to the police. Wouldn't you just try to forget the whole sorry episode and hope your mates never found out what had happened? Having the details published in the Daily Mail for your friends and family to read must be mortifying.
Well it was rape so reporting to the police was the right thing to do. Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 10th September 14:40
La Liga said:
t's not rape as there's no penis involved. It's sexual assault on multiple occasions.
The first one isn't a requirement of penis.And at no point was she forced or harmed, if anything it's fraud but I suspect that the victim has been having a same-sex relationship for some time but didn't want anyone to know, when it was discovered she's invented this bizarre tale
More info coming out and the defence side makes sense.. The victims version of the story is proper hatstand.
In short: 'victim' happy to pretend to be going out with 'Kye' as she was lesbian (with Gayle) and hadn't come out. She seems to have gone loopy at the point a rubber cock was introduced (havnt we all !)
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/woman-accu...
In short: 'victim' happy to pretend to be going out with 'Kye' as she was lesbian (with Gayle) and hadn't come out. She seems to have gone loopy at the point a rubber cock was introduced (havnt we all !)
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/woman-accu...
qube_TA said:
The first one isn't a requirement of penis.
Are you saying rape doesn't require a penis? It's not that clear. If you are, that's wrong, it does. That doesn't include the inchoate offences, naturally. qube_TA said:
And at no point was she forced or harmed, if anything it's fraud but I suspect that the victim has been having a same-sex relationship for some time but didn't want anyone to know, when it was discovered she's invented this bizarre tale
It has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud. It's not that easy to get pure lies to court. The accused has admitted creating and being in control of the made-up Facebook profile and persona. I assume the messages between the pair on Facebook are available as evidence, too. There's also corroborative CCTV, the evidence from interview and lots of other things we have no idea about etc.
La Liga said:
qube_TA said:
The first one isn't a requirement of penis.
Are you saying rape doesn't require a penis? It's not that clear. If you are, that's wrong, it does. That doesn't include the inchoate offences, naturally. qube_TA said:
And at no point was she forced or harmed, if anything it's fraud but I suspect that the victim has been having a same-sex relationship for some time but didn't want anyone to know, when it was discovered she's invented this bizarre tale
La Liga said:
It has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud.
It's not that easy to get pure lies to court. The accused has admitted creating and being in control of the made-up Facebook profile and persona. I assume the messages between the pair on Facebook are available as evidence, too. There's also corroborative CCTV, the evidence from interview and lots of other things we have no idea about etc.
So you're saying it's fraud?It's not that easy to get pure lies to court. The accused has admitted creating and being in control of the made-up Facebook profile and persona. I assume the messages between the pair on Facebook are available as evidence, too. There's also corroborative CCTV, the evidence from interview and lots of other things we have no idea about etc.
She had a voluntary sexual relationship with someone she believed to be male, which turned out not to be, in these days of enlightened GLBT rights having friskies with a woman who turns out to have a Y chromosome isn't going to stack up as an assault.
Edited by qube_TA on Thursday 10th September 16:42
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff