R v Linekar (Gareth)
Court of Appeal
Citations: [1995] QB 250; [1995] 2 WLR 237; [1995] 3 All ER 69.
Facts
The complainant was a prostitute. She agreed to have sex with the defendant for £25. After sex the defendant refused to pay. The complainant accused the defendant of rape. She argued that she would not have had sex with him if she knew she would not be paid. The judge directed the jury that the defendant’s deception could vitiate her consent, and the jury convicted. The defendant appealed.
Issue(s)
- Did the defendant’s lie vitiate the complainant’s consent?
Decision
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The defendant’s lie did not vitiate the complainant’s consent to sex. The complainant knew who the defendant was and that she was having sex, and so was not deceived as to any relevant matter.
This Case is Authority For…
A complainant’s consent is vitiated if they are deceived as to the nature of the sex act or the identity of the defendant. However, this only applies if the complainant did not know they were engaging in a sexual act or thought that the defendant was another person. Other kinds of deception will not inherently vitiate the complainant’s consent.
