Sexual Offences Cases
Section 1 – Rape Cases
Cases relevant to s.76
Williams (1923)
a singing teacher deceived his 16-year-old student into having sexual intercourse telling
her it was a procedure to improve her singing voice. D was charged with rape.
D did not understand the dynamics of sexual intercourse so the court could find deception
as to the nature of the act.
Dica (2004)
D, knowing he was HIV positive had unprotected sexual intercourse with two victims,
infecting both. Neither victims knew of D’s positive status when they consented.
Court ruled: guilty of offence against the person not rape.
Court of Appeal: allowed an appeal but the court clarified that a lack of knowledge about
D’s infection did not amount to deception as to the nature of the act. There was no rape.
Linekar (1995)
D had sexual intercourse with a prostitute (V) having promised to pay her £25. D never
intended to pay her. D was charged with rape on the basis that V would not have
consented had she knew D was not going to pay her.
Initially D was convicted of rape, but on appeal it was determined that consent was not
negated by D’s deception.
The Court of Appeal recognised V would not have consented without payment promise,
but held that consent remained effective as she was not deceived as to the nature of the
act (she knew D would penetrate her vagina) or the purpose of D doing so (for his sexual
gratification.)
Devonald (2008)
V (16 year old boy) was in a relationship with D’s daughter. D believed V had treated his
daughter badly and sought revenge by posing as a young girl online and persuaded V to
masturbate in front of a webcam. D was planning to use this video to humiliate the boy.
Crown Court: guilty of sexual offence. Section 76 presumption applied V was deceived as
to D’s purpose in relation to the sexual act. Conviction upheld on appeal.
R v Elbekkay [1995]
the appellant had been out drinking with a couple and retired to the couples flat. The
boyfriend fell asleep on the sofa and the appellant climbed into bed with the complainant.
Section 1 – Rape Cases
Cases relevant to s.76
Williams (1923)
a singing teacher deceived his 16-year-old student into having sexual intercourse telling
her it was a procedure to improve her singing voice. D was charged with rape.
D did not understand the dynamics of sexual intercourse so the court could find deception
as to the nature of the act.
Dica (2004)
D, knowing he was HIV positive had unprotected sexual intercourse with two victims,
infecting both. Neither victims knew of D’s positive status when they consented.
Court ruled: guilty of offence against the person not rape.
Court of Appeal: allowed an appeal but the court clarified that a lack of knowledge about
D’s infection did not amount to deception as to the nature of the act. There was no rape.
Linekar (1995)
D had sexual intercourse with a prostitute (V) having promised to pay her £25. D never
intended to pay her. D was charged with rape on the basis that V would not have
consented had she knew D was not going to pay her.
Initially D was convicted of rape, but on appeal it was determined that consent was not
negated by D’s deception.
The Court of Appeal recognised V would not have consented without payment promise,
but held that consent remained effective as she was not deceived as to the nature of the
act (she knew D would penetrate her vagina) or the purpose of D doing so (for his sexual
gratification.)
Devonald (2008)
V (16 year old boy) was in a relationship with D’s daughter. D believed V had treated his
daughter badly and sought revenge by posing as a young girl online and persuaded V to
masturbate in front of a webcam. D was planning to use this video to humiliate the boy.
Crown Court: guilty of sexual offence. Section 76 presumption applied V was deceived as
to D’s purpose in relation to the sexual act. Conviction upheld on appeal.
R v Elbekkay [1995]
the appellant had been out drinking with a couple and retired to the couples flat. The
boyfriend fell asleep on the sofa and the appellant climbed into bed with the complainant.
