R v Jheeta
Deception that does not relate to the nature or purpose of the act may still vitiate consent under the general definition, if it means the complainant did not freely agree.
Facts
Mr Jheeta had a relationship with a woman. When she tried to end it, he sent her anonymous threatening messages, and then, pretending to be police officers, sent her text messages telling her to continue having sex with him, or she would be fined for causing him distress. She continued to have sex with him for several years because of these messages. He pleaded guilty to rape, and then appealed.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that his deception did not fall within the conclusive presumptions in section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, because it did not relate to the nature or purpose of the act: she knew it was sexual intercourse and for what purpose. However, the conviction was upheld, because on the general definition of consent in section 74, the complainant had not freely agreed to have sex with him. She had been pressured into sex by his deception and threats, so she did not have the freedom to make the choice. Sir Igor Judge P said that section 76 should be confined to deception about the nature or purpose of the act.
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 Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527
- R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732, [2005] 1 WLR 2005
- 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.
