Sexual offences and consent

R. v Lawrance, [2020] EWCA Crim 971 and s.74 Sexual Offences Act 2003, examines the limitations of the meaning of consent within s.74 Sexual Offences Act 2003. It held that a man’s lie about his fertility should not be deemed to be so closely connected to the nature or purpose of sexual intercourse that it is capable of negating consent.

Lawrance met the complainant on a dating website. Prior to their first meeting, Lawrance confirmed that he had had a vasectomy. Upon meeting, the complainant sought confirmation that Lawrance had had the procedure before they engaged in sexual intercourse. She detailed that she did not want to get pregnant. Lawrance reassured her that he was infertile and sexual intercourse took place between them on two occasions that evening. Lawrance left during the night and in a text message the following morning he stated, ‘I have a confession. I’m still fertile. Sorry’. The complainant later found out that she was pregnant and underwent a termination.

Lawrance was convicted of two counts of rape on the basis that the complainant agreed to have unprotected sexual intercourse with Lawrance when she would otherwise have insisted on him wearing a condom. The appeal was successfully brought on the basis that the complainant’s consent had not been vitiated by Lawrance’s lie about previously having a vasectomy.

Contact Fortitude Chambers to discuss this or any other legal issue with our barristers.