R v Linekar [1995]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: D hired a prostitute but did not pay her. He was convicted of rape based on the fact that she had not consented to sexual activity without payment.

• Key Issue: Whether deception about the purpose of the sexual act (i.e., not paying) constitutes a lack of consent.

This case was prior to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The conviction for rape was overturned. The court ruled that s.76 did not apply to deception about the purpose of the act, such as payment issues.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Deception about Purpose: The case clarifies that deception regarding the purpose of the sexual act (e.g., payment) does not fall under s.76.

• Legal Clarification: It distinguishes between types of deception and their impact on consent, reaffirming that not all deceptions invalidate consent under the statute.