R v Bingham [2013]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: D, posing as another man, threatened to email photos of his girlfriend to her colleagues unless she performed sexual acts online.

• Key Issue: Whether s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act applied in this case.

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The appeal was allowed, and s.76 did not apply. The court decided that the deception was not about the ‘nature or purpose’ of the act but a peripheral matter, reverting to the interpretation in Jheeta.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Narrow Interpretation of s.76: This case reinforces a narrower application of s.76, emphasising that deception about identity or peripheral matters does not necessarily invalidate consent under s.76.

• Legal Guidance: It aligns with the principle that consent remains valid unless the deception directly pertains to the nature or purpose of the sexual act.