R v Linekar [1995] 1 WLR 1446

Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant deceived the complainant into engaging in sexual services by promising payment but had no intention of fulfilling this promise. The issue was whether this deception affected the validity of consent.

Held: The Court of Appeal acquitted the defendant, finding that the deception about payment did not impact the nature or purpose of the sexual act. The court ruled that the deception did not vitiate consent as it was unrelated to the act's nature or purpose.

Key Quote: The Court held that "a promise to pay, even if deceitful, does not affect the nature or purpose of the act in a way that vitiates consent."

💡Levelup: This case established a distinction between deceptions that affect consent and those that do not directly impact the nature of the sexual act.