![]() ![]() He was convicted of rape by a jury on what appears to be the basis that she was denied the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about the risk of pregnancy which was an explicit factor in her consent. On that understanding, she agreed to unprotected sexual intercourse when otherwise she would have insisted that he wear a condom. That case turned on the fact that the appellant falsely represented to his sexual partner that he had had a vasectomy. The Court of Appeal handed down a judgement in a case, R v Lawrance EWCA Crim 971, as recently as 23 July 2020 on the topic of deception and lies, which provides further guidance on the circumstances where deception cannot be considered to legally vitiate consent. There are limited circumstances where certain types of deception can be considered so integral to consent so as to vitiate (remove or undo) consent, such as ‘stealthing’ (the removal of a condom without a sexual partner’s knowledge), considered in Part 1 of this blog series. The issue of deception, false representation or deliberate omission in the context of sexual encounters has in recent years become a hot topic of discussion amongst legal academics, in popular culture (such as this TV series) and also in the courts. However, this offence was repealed (and not specifically replaced) by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In the past, the offence of ‘procuring sexual intercourse with a woman by false pretences or false representations’ existed under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 if that law was still applicable, it may have criminalised Kwame’s deceptive sexual behaviour under UK law. ![]() However it does not necessarily follow that all deceptive actions or omissions are illegal within our current legal framework. Did Kwame commit an offence by deceiving Nilufer in relation to his sexuality?ĭeceptive actions in the context of sexual relations have the potential to cause some level of harm to the person who has been deceived. Given the intimate nature of sexual activity, there are usually no other witnesses: even having taken all the circumstances into account, the issue is often decided on to one person’s word against another’s as to exactly what happened and whether criminal liability arises. Issues of consent become more complex when you consider that, even if person (A) asserts that they were involved in a non-consensual sexual act with person (B), it has to be proved that (B) did not reasonably believe (A) was consenting. Consent can be withdrawn at any time during sexual activity and each time activity occurs. It cannot be assumed that consent in relation to one sexual encounter automatically transfers to any subsequent sexual activity. ![]() Just because Kwame consented earlier does not mean that he consented to both acts. It is clear on the facts that Kwame did not consent to the second encounter and that his date was made aware that he did not consent. It is not in dispute that the first encounter, sexual intercourse, was consensual. Kwame had two separate sexual encounters with the same person, one after the other. So far as sexual activity is concerned, consent is defined in section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as agreeing by choice and they having the freedom and capacity to make that choice. (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.(B) does not consent to the touching and.(A) intentionally touches another person (B).In this scenario, Kwame’s Grindr date committed the offence of sexual assault.Ī person (A) commits a sexual assault if: Did Kwame’s date commit an offence, even though he had consensual sexual intercourse with Kwame a short while previously? Kwame’s female friends, Terry and Arabella, are unimpressed with his actions and deem them deceitful, destructive and narcissistic. Feeling deceived, Nilufer throws Kwame out of her flat. Afterwards, Nilufer makes a homophobic comment which prompts Kwame to disclose to her the fact that he is gay. He meets Nilufer, and the two have sexual intercourse. Perhaps in response to the trauma Kwame has experienced at the hands of masculine aggression, he decides to experiment sexually with a woman. The date refuses to let Kwame leave, pins him down and sexually assaults him. ![]() As Kwame is about to leave the flat, his date suggests further sexual activity. Kwame and his Grindr date meet up and have consensual sexual intercourse. He meets a man on Grindr, the dating app. The show’s creator, Michaela Coel, explores the dynamic between consent and deceit a topic that the Court of Appeal very recently considered in R v Lawrance EWCA Crim 971. Part 1 considered the experience of the show’s main character, Arabella this second article looks at the circumstances in which her friend, Kwame, finds himself. This blog series examines the sexual offences encountered by the main characters in the raw and unflinching BBC series, I May Destroy You. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |