R v Linekar
Deception about whether the complainant will be paid for sex does not vitiate consent to the act itself.
Facts
Mr Linekar agreed to pay a prostitute £25 for sexual intercourse. After they had intercourse, he left without paying. He had never intended to pay. He was convicted of rape, on the basis that her consent was obtained by fraud.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Morland J said that the prostitute had consented to sexual intercourse with Mr Linekar, so the act was not without her consent. His deception related to whether she would be paid, not to the nature of the act or the identity of the person, so it did not vitiate her consent. He might have been guilty of another offence, such as procuring sexual intercourse by false pretences, but not rape.
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 Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] 1 WLR 2582
- R v Lawrance [2020] EWCA Crim 971, [2020] 1 WLR 5025
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.
