R v Devonald
Deceiving a young man into performing a sexual act on camera, for a purpose he did not know of, was a deception about the purpose of the act.
Facts
Mr Devonald was angry that a 16 year old boy had ended a relationship with his daughter. He pretended, online, to be a 20 year old woman, and persuaded the boy to masturbate in front of a webcam, intending to humiliate him by sharing the recording. He was convicted of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on the basis of the conclusive presumption in section 76 that the boy did not consent because he was deceived about the purpose of the act.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The boy believed that he was engaging in sexual activity for the sexual gratification of a young woman, when in fact the defendant's purpose was to humiliate him. The jury was entitled to find that the boy had been deceived as to the purpose of the act, so the conclusive presumption under section 76 applied. The case shows that a deception about the purpose of the act can include a deception about the reason for it.
Related cases on sexual offences and consent
- Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
- R (F) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), [2014] QB 581
- R v B [2006] EWCA Crim 2945, [2007] 1 WLR 1567
- R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804, [2008] QB 131
- R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732, [2005] 1 WLR 2005
- R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] 1 WLR 2582
- R v Lawrance [2020] EWCA Crim 971, [2020] 1 WLR 5025
- R v Linekar [1995] QB 250
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
