R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527
Definition of ‘nature or purpose’ in s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Facts
The defendant posed as a young woman online to persuade his daughter’s former boyfriend to engage in a sexual act on a webcam. The complainant believed he was acting for the woman’s sexual gratification. The defendant’s actual purpose was to embarrass or expose him. After the trial judge ruled that the question of deception as to purpose could be left to the jury, the defendant pleaded guilty to causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
The offence of causing sexual activity without consent requires an absence of consent on the part of the victim, and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent on the part of the defendant. Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 imposes a conclusive presumption of the absence of consent and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent in circumstances where the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act.
The defendant argued that the complainant understood the sexual nature and purpose of the act and that any deception concerned only the surrounding circumstances.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against conviction. It held that the trial judge was entitled to leave to the jury whether the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the purpose of the act. The complainant’s awareness that the act was sexual did not resolve that question. Section 76(2)(a) can apply to intentional deception as to either the nature or the purpose of the act.
