R v Tabassum, [2000] 2 Cr App R 328

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Sarah, an amateur yoga instructor, hosts a free class in a public park. She claims the session will focus on stress-relief techniques requiring minimal physical contact to adjust posture. During the class, she invites a new participant, Lucy, to allow her to demonstrate an advanced posture correction. Lucy agrees, believing it is purely for legitimate teaching. However, Sarah secretly records the interactions for sensational online content aimed at her personal gain.


Which of the following statements best describes the legal impact of Sarah’s deception on Lucy’s consent to physical contact?

Introduction

Consent, a key part of criminal law for sexual offences, requires real agreement by the complainant to the act. The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Tabassum [2000] 2 Cr App R 328 set out a clear rule for when consent is invalid due to lies about the act’s purpose. The court found consent could be invalid if deception concerns the type or aim of the act, even if the complainant knew the physical actions involved. The case shows the need for truth and real agreement in deciding valid consent. This rule helps protect individual choice and makes sure consent is not obtained through lies.

The Facts of R v Tabassum

The appellant, Tabassum, falsely claimed to be running a breast cancer study. He convinced three women to let him examine their breasts by saying it was for medical research. None of the women would have agreed if they knew his real motive, which the court found was sexual gratification.

The Legal Issue: Deception About Purpose

The main question for the Court of Appeal was whether the women’s consent to the touching was legally valid. While they knew the physical act involved—a breast exam—they were misled about its true aim. The prosecution argued this deception meant there was no valid consent.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, ruling the women’s consent was invalid because they were deceived about the exam’s purpose. The court separated consent to the physical act from consent to its actual aim. The women agreed to the touching believing it was for medical reasons, not the appellant’s sexual goal. This deception made their consent legally invalid.

The Importance of R v Tabassum

R v Tabassum clarified how courts handle deception and consent. It established that lies about the core aim of an act—even if the physical actions are understood—can make consent invalid. This rule protects against misuse and ensures consent depends on truthful communication. The decision has been used in later cases and remains important in how courts interpret consent in sexual offences.

Comparing R v Tabassum with R v Richardson

The Court of Appeal compared Tabassum with R v Richardson [1998] 2 Cr App R 200. In Richardson, a dentist kept treating patients after being suspended. The court ruled the patients consented to the act’s type and aim (dental treatment), despite the lie about her qualifications. The difference lies in what was lied about: Richardson involved a lie about professional status, not the act’s core aim, while Tabassum concerned deception about the act’s true intent.

Applying R v Tabassum: Examples

Example 1: A man lies about being a massage therapist offering free sessions. A woman agrees, thinking it is a professional service, but the man’s real aim is sexual gratification. Following Tabassum, her consent would be invalid due to deception about the act’s purpose.

Example 2: A person pretends to be a doctor doing a medical exam. If the real aim is sexual assault, the patient’s consent is invalid because the exam’s stated purpose was false.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Tabassum marked a key step in consent law for sexual offences. It confirmed that lies about an act’s core aim—even with knowledge of its physical aspects—invalidate consent. This rule helps prevent harm by requiring honesty for lawful contact. The contrast with Richardson further shows how courts decide whether deception relates to the act’s central aim. This approach continues to guide legal practice in sexual offence cases. Later decisions like R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699 and R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 have followed these ideas, showing Tabassum’s ongoing impact on consent law.

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.

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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