R v Devonald [2008]
Share
R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 departed from the precedent set in R v Jheeta [2007], as the court adopted a broader interpretation of deception as to purpose under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, it is essential to highlight that this interpretation was later rejected in R v Bingham [2013].
Devonald, the defendant, seeking revenge against his daughter's ex-boyfriend whom he believed had mistreated her. To carry out this revenge, Devonald pretended to be a 20-year-old girl on the internet and convinced the victim to masturbate on webcam, intending to release the footage on the internet. Devonald was charged with causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The primary issue was whether the conclusive presumption under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applied in this case.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the conclusive presumption under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 did indeed apply. Leveson LJ, in delivering the judgment, acknowledged that there was no deception regarding the nature of the act, which was unquestionably sexual. However, the court found that there was deception in the purpose, as the intention was not sexual gratification but rather revenge by releasing the recorded footage on the web.
This decision marked a departure from the more restrictive interpretation of deception as to purpose in R v Jheeta [2007], expanding the scope of Section 76 to encompass situations where the deception pertains to the broader purpose of the sexual activity.
It is noteworthy that the broader interpretation in R v Devonald did not stand the test of time, as it was later rejected in the case of R v Bingham [2013]. This underlines the evolving nature of legal interpretation and the importance of subsequent cases in shaping and refining legal principles.
Devonald, the defendant, seeking revenge against his daughter's ex-boyfriend whom he believed had mistreated her. To carry out this revenge, Devonald pretended to be a 20-year-old girl on the internet and convinced the victim to masturbate on webcam, intending to release the footage on the internet. Devonald was charged with causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The primary issue was whether the conclusive presumption under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applied in this case.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the conclusive presumption under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 did indeed apply. Leveson LJ, in delivering the judgment, acknowledged that there was no deception regarding the nature of the act, which was unquestionably sexual. However, the court found that there was deception in the purpose, as the intention was not sexual gratification but rather revenge by releasing the recorded footage on the web.
This decision marked a departure from the more restrictive interpretation of deception as to purpose in R v Jheeta [2007], expanding the scope of Section 76 to encompass situations where the deception pertains to the broader purpose of the sexual activity.
It is noteworthy that the broader interpretation in R v Devonald did not stand the test of time, as it was later rejected in the case of R v Bingham [2013]. This underlines the evolving nature of legal interpretation and the importance of subsequent cases in shaping and refining legal principles.
