LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra- Case Law -R v Linekar (1995)
Case Name: R v Linekar (1995)
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts:
  • Defendant (D) agreed to pay £25 to a prostitute (V) for sexual intercourse.
  • After intercourse, D left without paying.
  • V alleged rape, arguing she only consented with advance payment and condom use.
  • The trial jury was instructed that D's fraud vitiated V's consent.
Issue:
  • Did the fraud relating to payment for sexual intercourse invalidate the victim's consent to the act?
Held:
  • No. The fraud did not vitiate V's consent.
Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning):
  • Only two types of fraud can invalidate consent in sexual offences:
    1. Fraud as to the nature of the act itself.
    2. Fraud as to the identity of the perpetrator.
  • Fraud related to payment is collateral and does not negate consent.
Significance:
  • Clarifies the limits of fraud in vitiating consent for sexual offences.
  • Highlights the distinction between fraud concerning the fundamental nature of the act/identity and other forms of deception.
  • Establishes that mere deception, such as regarding payment, is insufficient to invalidate consent.
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law