- The defendant posed under different identities and threatened, over a social network, the victim unless she sent him topless photographs
- Was the victim deceived as to the purpose of the act, such that consent could be conclusively presumed under s 76 SOA?
- 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  doubted.
- Retrial ordered