Protection being Non barrier methods (IUD)
Does the sex become un-consensual?
Posted May 29, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC
Consent can be conditional so a lie or deception from them might make it non-consensual but it's a complicated area. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent
This does not negate consent in the same way that consent can be conditional upon the use of a condom, but if the partner knowingly had an STI and did not inform the partner and the partner caught it, they could possibly be committing ABH/GBH rather than any sort of sexual offence.
It is definitely the same sort of thing. Breaking the conditions of consent through deception is paramount to no consent at all.
LEGALLY this does not break the consent. This is a legal advice sub not a moral advice sub.
You should look up "conditional consent" it has been used to charge people for lying to gain consent. The fact you think this is morals and not just common sense makes me question the kind of person you are.
You should look up R v B 2006, where it states that it does not invalidate consent not to reveal ones condition (in that case specifically it was HIV).
As I may have been unclear before, I am in no way saying it morally ok to do this and morally it isn't rape, however LEGALLY, as this is a legal sub, similar cases have been found to NOT be rape or an invalidation of Consent.
Did you contract a STI as a result of having sex with them?
This would not render the sex non-consensual, but could amount to an offence against the person if you actually contracted a disease as a result.
Hasnt there been a few cases of this with people knowingly HIV positive infecting people? Can't remember if it was sexual assault or GBH convictions?
I looked this up the other day Actually. It's GBH from reckless transmission.
It's also GBH if the offender knew they had HIV and intentionally transmitted it too
No, you still consented to the sexual activity.
If lying in the hope of getting laid was a criminal offence, lawyers like me would be as rich as the papers think we are.
There is a potential liability (criminally) if they knowingly exposed you to a risk of STI, but that would require them to positively know they had something nasty lurking... dishonestly claiming they’d had a test when they hadn’t would be a distinction.
Consent is not something that once gain cannot be lost and people have been charged with rape in the UK for deception for consent. Especially when there are conditions been established.
😳
Yes.
Sorry, I have no idea what that first sentence meant, but I am sure you are right.
if lying in the hopes of getting laid was a criminal offence
But he told me that he was an astronaut!
And I’m sure he was out of this world
lawyers like me would be as rich as the papers think we are.
Dream on, we'd just change the LAA reimbursement rate :D
“we’d”.
Finally outed. You’re checks which Justice minister we’re on now Robert Buckland. Finally!
Buckland is a politically convenient front man.
He's the bag man, ferrying warrants to the Palace.
You think he checks what he recepis?
He’s taken a lot of stick for being that front man. The quintessential inoffensive middle/middle/middle man.
Ferrying warrants, warranting ferrets
He’s a busy bag man
I think some lies in the hope of getting laid are illegal, but it needs to be really big. Like - sneaking into someone’s room and trying to pass yourself off as their partner. It needs to be deceit about literally who you are, from what I remember.
[deleted]
I’m not sure about consent, but if an STD was passed along knowingly, then a crime had been committed.
See: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intentional-or-reckless-sexual-transmission-infection
[removed]
Question of the Week because the answer to this question is probably worth everybody knowing about as a PSA.
Except for Redditors, who don't have sex, obviously.
Usual rules apply.
Anything that's not a legal comment can be left in reply to this comment and will be fairly unmoderated.
Except for Redditors, who don't have sex, obviously.
Speak for yourself!
...and me and the rest of the moderation team.
;(
Username checks out
[deleted]
In my humble opinion, every post should have a single fairly unmoderated thread allowed on it.
With my moderator hat on (and I can't say I'm speaking for everyone here, other mods may disagree) - no thank you.
We are actively trying to suppress non-legal advice/bollocks/off-topic/anecdotal comments when people are asking for actual legal advice - allowing individual posts within each thread which allow these undermines this and has the effect of driving the sub down a road to just being another generic advice/discussion sub.
There would also be two other negative effects here:
The non-legal advice stuff risks crowding out the legal advice stuff - if someone posts and gets 20 comments, 19 of which are in the shitposting thread and the other one of which is actual helpful advice, what's the value of the 19 comments? Why would someone post here if they're going to get just a bunch of wank from people who aren't even pretending to try and be helpful?
(By the way, if you think these proportions are me exaggerating, if a thread blows up then 50/50 helpful vs. unhelpful/non-legal comments, or worse is not unusual - this would almost certainly be worse if we were actively welcoming people who have nothing helpful to add.)
We'd attract the sort of commenter who we are actually desperately, actively trying to repel - people who have absolutely no interest in giving legal advice, can't offer any, don't read or care about our rules, don't even want there to be rules and just see this as another place to post. There's no reason that such an oblivious person would keep their threadshart in the unmoderated thread, but then we'd also be actively catering for them. We'd effectively be rewarding them for not being able to be helpful by giving them a special place where they can be unhelpful. This would make our jobs harder and inevitably lead to us drinking even more meths than we currently do.
The whole point of being here is to provide legal advice to our posters, not to provide an outlet for people to discuss tangential issues related to things our posters want legal advice on. Any move to cater to people who don't want to provide legal advice is, in my eyes, a bad one - it undermines our core purpose. There are plenty of other subs where people can post whatever they feel like (e.g. BOLA after a thread is over) but we don't want to be one.
EDIT: I should say that there's a new "open forum" thread which will be posted upon on the 1st June - while these sorts of things are frequently a hard no we are at the very least willing to discuss and give reasoning as to why!
I agree with this.
Don't ban me, bro.
Your comment has been automatically removed and flagged for moderator review as the words you've used suggest that it is not legal advice. As this is r/LegalAdviceUK, all our comments must contain helpful, on-topic, legal advice. We expect commenters to provide high-effort legal advice for our posters, as they have come to our subreddit for legal advice instead of a different subreddit for moral support or general advice such as r/OffMyChest, r/Vent, r/Advice, or similar.
Some posters may benefit from non-legal advice as part of their question or referrals to other organisations to address side issues that they may also be experiencing, however comments on r/LegalAdviceUK must be predominantly legal advice. Please see more here about why we have this rule.
If your comment contains helpful, on-topic, legal advice, it will be approved and displayed shortly. If you have posted a comment of moral support, an anecdote about a personal experience or your comment is mostly or wholly advice that isn't legal advice, it is not likely to be approved and we ask you to please be more aware of our subreddit rules in the future.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
lol this is the one thing u/kryten2k35 DIDN'T want to happen
We were lied to!
I feel personally attacked.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
This is an interesting question. I will say I'm no law expert, but I have learned some things in the consent awareness and sexual education group and have been in a few discussions with people at my uni around consent. It would be a form of sexual misconduct if it was knowingly deceptive as consent is formed under conditions. Consider it somewhat a contractual agreement. If the terms were knowingly broken then yes it would be a form of sexual misconduct, although there are no state laws to say specifically that disclosing the information is a legal requirement and there is some argument about whether it being enforceable to disclose infections because of the sexual and medical autonomy of the person, but in general if they were in knowledge of the infection and knowingly took risks that exposed the other party then they are liable. If the other party unknowingly had an STD/STI its a bit of a grey area, there is a potential argument for reckless behavior, but it would be unlikely be prosecutable. Bottom line consent would be broken either way, however it depends on the manner - knowingly is illegal because it is a form of deception, not knowingly then it can be argued that it wasn't deception.
An interesting read into this: https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/40/1/82/5658543
I recall a case where a man was convicted of fraud because he told an elderly woman he loved her and she bought him stuff. I'm not sure how they proved he didn't love her, maybe they argued that she was so old that no one could possibly love her.
So maybe if someone has lied to you about being clean of any STIs and you bought them dinner, you could have them done for fraud on the basis that you wouldn't have bought them dinner if you'd known the truth.
What would be the case if a 20 year old female told a 30 year male that she loved him and he showered her with gifts but she broke up with him?
[deleted]
It is probably helpful to set out the cases on each side of the "conditional consent" discussion. The relevant legislation is section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which states that consent is not valid if someone is 'intentionally deceived...as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act'. The courts then have to interpret that statement to decide what constitutes the 'nature or purpose' of the act when conditional consent has been given.
Firstly, conditional consent situations in which the consent given remains valid, and someone has not committed an offence: Lying about being single/divorced, rich, and so on is all accepted as legally permissible.
When it comes to an STI, failing to mention you know you are HIV positive is not a criminal act: R v EB [2006] EWCA Crim 2945: 'Where one party to sexual activity has a sexually transmissible disease which is not disclosed to the other party any consent that may have been given to that activity by the other party is not thereby vitiated. The act remains a consensual act.'
Note however that this is no defence to a charge of GBH if someone is infected as a result: 'However, the party suffering from the sexual transmissible disease will not have any defence to any charge which may result from harm created by that sexual activity, merely by virtue of that consent, because such consent did not include consent to infection by the disease.' (Ibid.) That was also a discussion about implied consent, i.e. failure to mention something that might be relevant. It did not cover explicitly lying about it as in the situation you mention.
And secondly, cases in which the court has decided that consent was not valid, and an offence has been committed: Removing a condom during sex ('stealthing') is an offence (Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849) as is deception surrounding gender (R v McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051)
The situation you mention could be seen as closer to the EB case, in which consent remained valid. But the CPS are becoming increasingly eager to test the boundaries of the law in this area, and they might well consider charging if the condition regarding checking for an STI could be proved.