R v Linekar [1995] Crim LR 320

Consent is the voluntary agreement to engage in a particular activity, and it plays a crucial role in ethical and legal contexts, especially in matters of relationships and sexual activities. It emphasizes the importance of mutual agreement and respect between individuals involved.

Fraud involves intentional deception for personal gain or to cause harm to others. In legal terms, it often refers to false representation or misleading actions that lead someone to act against their best interests, resulting in financial or legal consequences.

Rape is a heinous crime involving non-consensual sexual intercourse. It violates an individual's autonomy and bodily integrity, constituting a severe breach of trust and a profound infringement on personal rights. Legal systems universally condemn rape and seek to prosecute offenders to ensure justice for victims and deter such reprehensible acts.

Gareth Linekar (‘Defendant’) approached the Victim (‘Complainant’), who was working as a prostitute. She agreed to engage in sexual intercourse with the Defendant for the agreed sum of £25. However, after the sexual encounter, the Defendant left without paying the agreed amount. The Complainant, feeling deceived, sought help by knocking on a neighboring door and reported that she had been raped.

During the Defendant's trial for rape, the Complainant provided evidence that sexual intercourse had occurred as a result of a violent assault. She asserted that she would not have consented to engage in sexual activity unless she had been paid in advance.

The judge asked the jury if the Complainant had consented, believing she would receive payment. Still, the Defendant had never intended to pay, and the fraud surrounding the payment invalidated the Complainant's consent.

The jury, taking into account the judge's directions, found the Defendant guilty of rape. In response to a question posed by the judge, the jury stated that they had reached their verdict based on the understanding that the Defendant never intended to pay, and the element of fraud negated that consent.

In the matter of the appeal by the Defendant, the court, upon careful consideration, held that the appeal was allowed.

It was established that while consent to sexual intercourse could be vitiated by fraud regarding the nature of the act or the identity of the person involved, in instances where a false promise concerning payment induced a woman's consent, the absence of genuine intention to fulfill the promise did not nullify her consent.

The conviction for rape was quashed.

The case delves into the complex dynamics of consent, fraud, and rape. Consent, vital in ethical and legal contexts, emphasizes mutual agreement in relationships. Fraud, an intentional deception for personal gain, involves false representation with legal consequences. Rape is condemned for violating autonomy and bodily integrity.

In this case, the Defendant failed to pay after engaging in intercourse, prompting a rape report. The Complainant argued fraud invalidated her consent. The jury found him guilty, believing the Defendant never intended to pay.

On appeal, the court held that consent, while influenced by fraud, remains valid when induced by a false promise of payment. The rape conviction was quashed, highlighting nuanced legal considerations in sexual offense cases.

A man offered to pay a prostitute £25 for sex, but after intercourse didn’t pay her.

She said that her consent was dependent on payment and had therefore been raped.

CA said it is the absence of consent to physical sexual intercourse that is the essential ingredient to rape.

• Fraud is only relevant where Victim has no idea that sex is occurring.

• Hence Flattery, where there is no consent to intercourse (she thinks it is a surgical operation), is different to this case where there IS consent to sexual intercourse, albeit a consent obtained fraudulently. 

R v Flattery