Top Left Background Top Right Background
Bottom Right Background

R v B [2013] (Conclusive consent)

Facts

  • The defendant posed under different identities and threatened, over a social network, the victim unless she sent him topless photographs

Issue

  • Was the victim deceived as to the purpose of the act, such that consent could be conclusively presumed under s 76 SOA?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • As s 76 removes a defendant’s last line of defence to a jury, it should be construed narrowly, especially as word ‘purpose’ is undefined in the SOA 2003, meaning that it could refer to either the defendant’s purpose or the victim’s purpose
  • Deception as to identity does not vitiate consent
  • R v Devonald [2008] doubted.
  • Retrial ordered
Goto Top
Close Notification

Recent News

Other News