R v Devonald (Stephen) [2008] EWCA Crim 525

Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant pretended to be a young woman named ‘Casey’ to manipulate the complainant into performing sexual acts on a webcam. The purpose was to humiliate him rather than for sexual gratification.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, ruling that the deception about the purpose of the acts—humiliation rather than sexual gratification—vitiated consent.

Key Quote: The Court stated that "the deception regarding the purpose of the act, which was humiliation rather than sexual gratification, vitiates consent."

💡Levelup: This case highlighted the significance of the purpose behind deception in determining whether consent is valid.