SD, R. v
The applicant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the purpose of the act of masturbation, causing him to believe he was engaging in sexual activity with a 20-year-old female for her gratification, when in fact it was for the applicant's ulterior motive. This deception vitiated consent under section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Devonald; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
- Legal Topics
- Consent, Deception, Sexual Activity Without Consent
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen Devonald
Applicant
Regina (The Crown)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether intentional deception as to the purpose of a sexual act vitiates consent under section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
- 2 Whether the applicant's actions constituted intentional deception as to the purpose of the act
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the purpose of the act of masturbation, causing him to believe he was engaging in sexual activity with a 20-year-old female for her gratification, when in fact it was for the applicant's ulterior motive. This deception vitiated consent under section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment