It was open to the jury to conclude that V had been deceived as to the purpose of the masturbation. Whilst the nature of the act was undoubtedly sexual, its purpose encompassed rather more than the specific purpose of sexual gratification.

D had committed rape. Although his lies did not conclusively prove the lack of consent (s 76), D’s admission that he knew V had not truly consented showed V had not made a free choice for the purpose of s 74 SOA 2003.

D was an undercover police officer who had infiltrated an environmentalist group of which V was a member. D and V had a relationship. D moved in with V and they had a child together. V said she would never have agreed to have sex with D had she known he was undercover officer who was using the relationship to strengthen his cover. The High Court decided under the law prior to the 2003 Act and (obiter) under the 2003 Act itself, there was no rape. V had not been deceived as to an issue which related to physical act of sex but rather the surrounding circumstances and so she could be taken to have consented.