## Facts

- Mr. Kirk, the appellant, was charged with indecent assault.
- The complainant was a young homeless girl who engaged in sexual acts with the appellant in exchange for a small sum of money, which she intended to use to buy food.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the complainant’s desperate circumstances, including her homelessness and hunger, might not of themselves remove her consent.
- The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the jury had been properly directed regarding the significance of consent given under such pressure.

## Issues

1. Whether consent given under conditions of desperation, such as homelessness and hunger, may be considered invalid in criminal law.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that consent could still exist despite the complainant's vulnerable circumstances.
3. Whether taking unfair advantage of a vulnerable complainant’s situation negates the validity of their consent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were incorrect.
- The court found that the jury should have been instructed to consider whether the complainant’s desperation rendered her apparent consent invalid.
- It was determined that the circumstances of homelessness, hunger, and vulnerability created substantial doubt about the genuineness of the complainant’s agreement.
- The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

## Legal Principles

- Consent must be a voluntary agreement, free from undue pressure or unfair advantage.
- The existence of vulnerability and exploitation may undermine the genuineness of apparent consent.
- Extreme financial or social pressure can deprive a person of real choice, affecting the validity of consent in criminal law.
- The decision distinguishes between consent given under mere hard circumstances and consent given under compulsion created by desperation or essential need.
- Guidance was provided for juries to consider power imbalances and vulnerability when evaluating consent.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Kirk clarified that consent obtained in situations of desperation, such as homelessness and hunger, may not be legally valid if it is not truly voluntary, setting a significant precedent on how vulnerability and unfair advantage are evaluated in determining the validity of consent in criminal law.


R v Kirk [2008] EWCA Crim 434