R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527
Definition of ‘nature or purpose’ in s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Facts
The defendant, believing the victim to have treated his daughter badly during their relationship, posed as a young woman to correspond with the victim online. Using this persona, the defendant tricked the victim into masturbating in front of a webcam with the purpose of embarrassing the victim. The defendant was convicted of the offence of causing activity without consent under s.4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
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. s.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 ‘relevant act’ to which the deceit must pertain is the sexual act: deceit as to surrounding circumstances should not suffice. On this basis, he argued that it could not be presumed that the victim masturbated without consent as he knew of the sexual nature of masturbating and that its purpose was his own sexual gratification.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The ‘purpose’ of the act encompassed more than just personal sexual gratification in this instance: the victim’s purpose encompassed sexual gratification of a non-existent woman, when the true purpose was his humiliation. As s.76 applies to instances of deceit as to the nature or purpose of the act, it did not matter that the victim was aware that the act was sexual in nature.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as of 2025. R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 is still good law and continues to be cited in academic and legal commentary on s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (ss.4 and 76) have not been materially amended in ways affecting the analysis in this article. Readers should be aware that s.76 conclusive presumptions have attracted academic debate and some judicial caution in subsequent cases — notably R v B [2013] EWCA Crim 3 suggested that courts should be careful not to extend s.76 too broadly — but this does not undermine the outcome or reasoning in Devonald itself, which remains an important authority on the interpretation of ‘purpose’ within s.76.
