R v Bingham [2013] EWCA Crim 823

Consent is the voluntary, informed, and uncoerced agreement between all parties involved, essential for respectful interactions and ethical relationships.

Deceit involves intentionally misleading or withholding information to manipulate others, undermining trust and autonomy in both personal and professional contexts.

Statutory presumptions in sexual offence cases establish legal guidelines on how certain facts are presumed true or false unless proven otherwise, influencing the burden of proof and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Darrell George Bingham (“Appellant”) created two false identities, "Grant" and "Chad," to manipulate his girlfriend (“Complainant”).

• Initially posing as "Grant," he coerced her into sending compromising photos and later threatened to distribute them unless she performed sexual acts over the internet.

• Under the identity of "Chad," Bingham continued the deception, threatening to expose the compromising photos and coercing the complainant to engage in further sexual acts, including penetration with objects.

• The Complainant eventually confided in Bingham (posing as himself), who then suggested a plan to end the blackmail involving the fake identities.

• This led to Bingham's arrest when the victim involved the police, who uncovered his deception.

Bingham was charged and convicted at Hull Crown Court on seven counts related to causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

• During his appeal, Bingham challenged the application of section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which deals with conclusive presumptions about consent.

• The appeal argued that the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding deceit and the purpose of the acts were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal found flaws in the trial judge's directions and declared Bingham's conviction unsafe.

They ordered a retrial on counts 1 to 7, emphasizing the importance of correctly applying legal presumptions related to consent in sexual offence cases.

In this appeal, Darrell George Bingham challenged his convictions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

• The Appellant contested the application of section 76 of the Act, establishing conclusive consent presumptions under specific circumstances.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Justice Hallett, Bean J, and HHJ Pert QC, carefully reviewed the trial proceedings.

• They found that the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding section 76 were deficient.

• Specifically, the judge had not adequately clarified the narrow interpretation of "deception as to purpose," a crucial element under the statute.

The Court noted significant concerns about the extent and nature of the alleged deception in this case, questioning whether it met the statutory threshold required to trigger the conclusive presumptions of non-consent and absence of belief in consent.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashing Darrell George Bingham's convictions on counts 1 to 7 and ordering a retrial.

The decision shows the importance of ensuring fair trials and the correct application of legal provisions, particularly those significantly impacting the Defendant's defence.

Consent is fundamental in all interactions, requiring voluntary, informed, and uncoerced agreement for ethical relationships.

• In this case, Darrell George Bingham's actions egregiously violated this principle, manipulating his girlfriend through deceit and coercion.

Statutory presumptions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 play a crucial role in establishing legal guidelines for cases involving sexual offenses.

• These presumptions are designed to ensure fairness in legal proceedings by guiding how certain facts are presumed true or false, influencing the burden of proof.

• The appeal in Bingham's case underscored the necessity of correctly interpreting and applying these legal presumptions, particularly in cases where consent is a central issue.

Darrell George Bingham's conduct involved the creation of fictitious personas utilized in coercing his girlfriend to perform sexual acts. His manipulation escalated to threats of distributing compromising photos unless she complied, demonstrating a pattern of deceitful and coercive behavior.

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Bingham's case highlighted critical flaws in the trial judge's instructions regarding section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Specifically, the court found deficiencies in how "deception as to purpose" was explained to the jury, a pivotal aspect in cases involving statutory presumptions about consent.

Concerns were raised about whether the extent of Bingham's deception met the legal threshold necessary to trigger the conclusive presumptions of non-consent and absence of belief in consent.

Given these concerns and the fundamental importance of fair trials, the Court of Appeal allowed Bingham's appeal, quashing his convictions on counts 1 to 7 and ordering a retrial.