I thought children were supposed to be a blessing?

[vetran]

In cases where police operate undercover there will certainly be a whole slew of minor offences committed, certainly if you look at the fraud aspect, but these would generally be dismissed as not having sufficient weight to warrant prosecution. Having a sexual relationship and fathering a child as a result doesn't fall into that category.

Rather than Wikipedia armchair expertise how about a real lawyer and a direct quote from the lawyer behind the allegations?

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.

Note Regina v Clarence was about a Husband who knowingly infected his wife with Gonorrhea and doesn't support your case.

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.

hmmm

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.

As the 'offence' happened in 1984 - 87 it would be a stretch to use case law in 2003 to condemn him.

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.

[BrilloPad]

[vetran]

I wonder what his wife makes of it all.

The point you're not acknowledging is that she's not been awarded money as a victim of crime, but that she's been awarded money because the police behaved unacceptably. Think of it in light of the kind of awards that have been given for things like discrimination or bullying or unfair dismissal, which do seem out of proportion to awards for violent crime. The difference is that the "offender" is not an individual, but an organisation.

it was nearly 30 years ago, being judged by today's.

Apparently the Police prohibit sexual relations. So this individual behaved irresponsibly but I assume they knew about it fairly quickly. Not sure why the Police paid out.

Spying on protest groups has gone badly wrong, police chiefs say | UK news | theguardian.com

Another 8 claimants

Undercover police officers' lies wrecked lives, say women they duped | UK news | theguardian.com

I assume his wife came around no mention of Divorce on wiki.

[DaveB]

Rather than Wikipedia armchair expertise how about a real lawyer and a direct quote from the lawyer behind the allegations?



Note Regina v Clarence was about a Husband who knowingly infected his wife with Gonorrhea and doesn't support your case.

I wonder if you can prosecute someone for 'forgetting' her birth control based on this?




hmmm



As the 'offence' happened in 1984 - 87 it would be a stretch to use case law in 2003 to condemn him.

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.

And you are quoting the case out of context. In R v Clarence the judgement was indeed that infecting his wife with gonorrhoea did not negate the consent but he was convicted of actual bodily harm. Later overturned on appeal. He was charged with rape but found not guilty. The judges comment in the case was making it clear that in the view of the court the only things that would negate the consent were fraud as to the nature of the act itself, or fraud concerning the identity of the individual who does the act. The fact that she knew who he was and had consented to penetrative sex means there was no fraud on either count. Had she consented to non-penetrative sexual activity or was under the belief that the person involved was her husband when he wasn't, then fraud would have been committed and consent nullified.

Your final point it irrelevant as their is no deception involved. The prostitute is being paid to have sex in the knowledge that he may or may not be who he says he is. The act that follows proves nothing as doubt has already been established and she has consented anyway.

[vetran]

And you are quoting the case out of context. In R v Clarence the judgement was indeed that infecting his wife with gonorrhoea did not negate the consent but he was convicted of actual bodily harm. Later overturned on appeal. He was charged with rape but found not guilty. The judges comment in the case was making it clear that in the view of the court the only things that would negate the consent were fraud as to the nature of the act itself, or fraud concerning the identity of the individual who does the act. The fact that she knew who he was and had consented to penetrative sex means there was no fraud on either count. Had she consented to non-penetrative sexual activity or was under the belief that the person involved was her husband when he wasn't, then fraud would have been committed and consent nullified.

Your final point it irrelevant as their is no deception involved. The prostitute is being paid to have sex in the knowledge that he may or may not be who he says he is. The act that follows proves nothing as doubt has already been established and she has consented anyway.

The Wills quote seems pretty clear that consent obtained fraudulently was still consent. There was a case about the nature of the activity pretending it was a another type of activity i.e. a medical exam.

Stephens challenges it but examples are ones known to the victim

As the former Solicitor General concedes it is a grey area, I trust her opinion more than Wikipedia.

The prostitute would not be party to the doubt about identification so it would by your definition be raped.

very grey!