Williams v Williams [1923] 1 KB 340

Facts

• In this 1923 Court of Criminal Appeal case, Williams, a singing teacher, was convicted of rape.
• The incident involved Williams telling his student that sexual intercourse would improve her breathing and, thereby, her singing.
• The victim consented on the basis of this false pretense.
• The key factual dispute was whether the victim’s consent was genuine given the circumstances and the nature of the deception employed.
• The case applied principles similar to those in R v Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 410, where consent induced by deception was also at issue.

Issues

1. Whether consent obtained by a false representation as to the nature of an act constitutes valid consent in the context of sexual offences.
2. Whether intercourse procured under false pretenses can amount to rape.
3. Whether the fraud used was sufficient to vitiate the victim's consent under criminal law.

Decision

• The court determined that the victim’s consent was invalid as it had been obtained through deception as to the nature of the act.
• It held that sexual intercourse procured by such false pretenses amounts to rape.
• The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• The judgment reinforced that for consent to be valid in sexual offences, it must be based on true understanding of the nature of the act.

Legal Principles

• Consent in the context of sexual offences requires conscious volition and understanding of the act being consented to.
• Fraud or misrepresentation as to the nature of the act vitiates consent.
• The decision follows the ratio of R v Flattery, confirming that deception about the act itself renders consent ineffective.
• The case set a precedent for the requirement of genuine, informed consent in criminal law regarding sexual offences.

Conclusion

Williams v Williams [1923] 1 KB 340 clarified that consent obtained by fraud as to the nature of a sexual act is not valid in law, establishing that deception of this kind vitiates consent for the purposes of rape. The decision has had a lasting impact on the legal understanding of consent in sexual offences.