D was guilty of a sexual assault. The act was in its nature sexual and so the motivation of the defendant was irrelevant.

D was charged with causing a person to perform a sexual activity without consent by pretending online to be an American called Grant and getting his girlfriend (V) to perform sexual acts and recording the material for a purported blackmail attempt.

D’s deception did not negate consent because he was not impersonating someone known personally to V. Nor did his deception as to purpose negate consent because one of his purposes was to obtain sexual gratification, which V also believed to be the purpose of the act.

The defendant was charged with raping V, who was drunk at the time.

The Court of Appeal held that on the proper construction of s 74, if, through drink, V had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she was not consenting; that, however, where V had voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agreed to do so, she was consenting.

V was a 16-year-old boy and D was the father of V’s ex-girlfriend. D sought to humiliate V, thinking V had treated his daughter badly, by corresponding with V over the internet impersonating a young woman. D persuaded V to masturbate in front of a webcam. The issue was whether V had consented to engage in masturbation.

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 persuaded V that she had to have sexual intercourse with him to avoid facing prosecution from the police by causing him harm by ending her relationship with him.

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 told V he had had a vasectomy. V as a result consented to unprotected sex.

There was not rape because V had consented. The deception as to the vasectomy did not affect the physical nature of the act.

D was an undercover police officer who infiltrated an environmentalist group to which V belonged. V believed they had a genuine relationship and they had sexual relations.

There was consent. V was not mistaken as to the sexual act, but as to the nature of their relationship.