## 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.
