Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Fulford and Mr Justice Sweeney at a High Court hearing in London, added: "She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based.
"Accordingly her consent was negated.
"Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina.
"In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of a."
Source: BBC News
What is conditional consent?
Conditional Consent is when consent is given under imposed conditions. If an act falls outside of the given conditions, then the act is non-consensual and goes against the consent given.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003, at Section 74, requires that a person ‘agree by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice’.
Under UK law consent is specific and is required for each sexual act. In some situations it can be argued that by lying or deceitful action a person can deprive someone of making a full and free choice. For example, by removing a condom without consent or knowledge, the individual deprives the person from making a choice. The person may not have consented to the sexual encounter if they had been aware of the full facts.
In English and Welsh law this is known as ‘conditional consent’ in sexual encounters.
Consent and the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Under section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, if the defendant:
• Intentionally deceived the complainant as to the purpose of the relevant act; or
• Induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating someone else who was ‘personally known to the complainant’.
then it is understood that the complainant did not consent to a sexual act and the defendant did not believe the complainant consented. The statutory definition of consent laid down in section 74 was considered in several high-profile cases, including:
• Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 – the defendant removed the condom during intercourse.
• The Queen (on the app of F) v DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin) – the defendant ejaculated inside the complainant’s vagina even though she had told him not to.
• R v Justine McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 – gender deception or gender fraud.
In these cases it was argued that ostensible (apparent) consent was not true consent, either:
• because the accused deceived the complainant in a way that is not covered by section 74; or
• because the accused did not comply with a condition which the complainant imposed when they gave their consent.
The key points from the cases considering ostensible consent are:
• Ostensible consent must be given at a relevant time, normally at penetration.
• A deception (other than one that falls under section 74) or a condition of consent (such as the wearing of a condom) must be present.
• Although deception or a condition forms part of the context of whether consent was given it is not conclusive, other contexts must also be considered.
• A broad and common sense approach must be taken to the complainant’s “choice” and the “freedom” to make any particular choice.
• Section 74 was intended to give individuals personal sexual sovereignty and making consent subject to one or more conditions is an act that embodies that autonomy.
Source: Reeds Solicitors LLP
So yeah, it is legally defined as
. Angela, go back to "Google law school" and
STOP fING DEBATING SUCH SENSITIVE TOPICS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE fING IGNORANT ON THE TOPIC(S).
