R v Tabassum
Women who consented to touching for a medical purpose did not consent to touching by a man who was not medically qualified.
Facts
Mr Tabassum persuaded three women to let him examine their breasts, telling them that he was conducting a survey on breast cancer for a software database. He said that he was medically qualified, which was false. The women agreed because they believed the examination was for a medical purpose. He was convicted of indecent assault.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Rose LJ said that the women had consented to the nature of the act, touching their breasts, but not to its quality, because they had consented only to touching for a medical purpose by a qualified person. Their consent did not extend to touching by Mr Tabassum, who was not medically qualified and was not acting for a medical purpose. Consent to the nature of the act is not enough if the complainant has been deceived about its quality.
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.
