Originally posted by DaveB
View Post
In R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, the Court of Appeal held that a man who had infected his wife with gonorrhea had committed no assault; the concealment of his disease and infidelity did not negate her consent to intercourse. “That consent obtained by fraud is no consent at all is not true as a general proposition either in fact or in law,” stated Wills J: otherwise any adulterer, bigamist or silver-tongued charmer would be similarly guilty of rape.
I wonder if you can prosecute someone for 'forgetting' her birth control based on this?
This approach was followed in R v Linekar [1995] QB 250, where the defendant made off without paying, after sex with a prostitute: the Court of Appeal held his insincere promise to pay did not negate consent.
The case law on this subject is thus somewhat contradictory and Vera Baird QC concedes it is a grey area, stating “all bets are off” if a case ever came to court. In particular, the most recent High Court cases seem to conflict with older precedent and lead to some illogical consequences.
Sex, Lies and Undercover Cops - The Student Lawyer
So his guilt of rape is not established and is doubted by a former Solicitor General ! Get the Pitchforks ready! burn him, burn him!
The point they seem to be turning on is that Bob was not Bob, by default undercover cops can't be who they are.
If they win this, any undercover cop who is suspected is then sent for 10 minutes with one of the gang's prostitute's and the case is thrown out, if he won't do it then its a bullet in the head.
And yet again his behavior would not be acceptable in normal life.
Comment