R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] Crim. L.R. 144

Key point

  • Deception on the situation that were threatening did not fall within the meaning of ‘nature and purpose’ in s76 Sexual Offences Act

Facts

  • D and V were in a sexual relationship
  • After V broke off the relationship, D pretended to be police officers in text messages to V, which demanded that she to have sex with him, threatening her with a fine if she refused
  • D was charged with rape

Held (Court of Appeal)

  • D was rightly convicted – although the conclusive presumption in S76 Sexual Offences Act 2003 did not apply, V did not consent within the meaning of S74 of the Act

Judge LJ

  • S76 raises conclusive presumptions that ‘require the most stringent scrutiny.’: [23]
  • S76(2)(a) only applied to deception on the nature or purpose of intercourse and no conclusive presumption arose when the complainant is deceived in some other way such as ‘disingenuous blandishments of or common or garden lies’: [24]
  • In this case, V was deceived not about the nature or purpose of the act of intercourse but about the situation in which she found herself: [28]
  • However, V had not consented to intercourse for the purposes of s74 and D was aware she had not consented: [29]