R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699

Facts

  • The defendant, Jheeta, was in a sexual relationship with the complainant.
  • After the relationship deteriorated, Jheeta sent the complainant anonymous text messages falsely purporting to be from the police.
  • The messages stated that the complainant must continue having sex with Jheeta to avoid legal consequences.
  • These deceptive messages persisted for several months.
  • As a result of the messages, the complainant believed she was legally obligated to have sex with the defendant.
  • Jheeta’s deception directly influenced the complainant’s decision to engage in sexual acts.

Issues

  1. Whether the complainant’s consent was valid under Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 when obtained through Jheeta’s direct and dishonest communication.
  2. Whether dishonesty that does not relate directly to the sexual acts, such as lies about wealth or background, affects the validity of consent under Section 74.
  3. How the distinction between types of deception impacts the legal concept of consent in sexual offences.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal upheld Jheeta’s conviction, finding the complainant’s consent invalid due to his direct deception.
  • The court noted that consent was vitiated because the lies were directly related to the sexual acts in question, undermining the complainant’s freedom to choose.
  • The ruling distinguished between deceptions that invalidate consent (those directly linked to the sexual act) and those that do not (such as about personal history).
  • The court confirmed that not every dishonest statement removes valid consent, but those affecting the freedom and capacity to make a choice about sexual activity do.

Legal Principles

  • Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003: Consent requires that a person agrees by choice, with freedom and capacity to make that choice.
  • Dishonesty or pressure that directly undermines genuine agreement, specifically relating to the act itself, invalidates consent.
  • Lies about issues not directly linked to the act may not vitiate consent.
  • The decision affirms that the focus for consent is on the complainant’s genuine freedom and capacity to choose.

Conclusion

R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699 established that consent to sexual activity is invalid under Section 74 if obtained through dishonesty that directly compromises the freedom and ability to choose, distinguishing between deceptions central to the act and peripheral lies, and shaping subsequent case law on consent in sexual offences.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal