Are you researching the important case of R v Linekar? This article will look at the possible solution to the precedent of R v Linekar and cases that involve deceit to have sex with the victims. The view that the decision imposed was one that was unfair in the context of the modern would be irrational.

This article will consider a solution to all cases similar to R v Linekar in relation to sexual services for hire to be considered Theft or Fraud to allow a fairer solution and a proportionate punishment.

It can be observed that in the precedent of R V Linekar that the defendant was punished on the view the victim did not consent to the act.

However, this may be argued untrue on looking at the facts at hand the victim did in fact consent by looking at the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 74. where it can be argued the defendant in fact was arguably free to choose to have sex by asking for money upfront or simply rejecting his offer.

Physical threats and arguable financial pressure

The victim was free on the grounds there was no duress applied to her such as physical threats and arguable financial pressure and was in the capacity to consent to the act. Section 76(2)(a)[3] may be relevant as it is arguable to the nature to be a commercial yet degrading transaction.

However, still, one that does not contrast with the purpose of the act of still substantially involving sexual gratification and there was only fraud in payment. As Sir Igor Judge in R v Jheeta (2007 ), can be summarized in the view of deception and persuasion to have sex rarely goes against the purpose of sex.

The Court’s Decision: Interpretations and Implications

Which similar to Jheeta that the act of sex was actually consented to rather than the surrounding element of payment being lied to.

It can be argued that the solution to this issue would be to consider the act to fall under property offences rather than sexual offences.

Notably fraud and obtaining services without payment are more propionate charges. On this view, the decision of Linekar is not in line with the Conesus notion of rape.

A traditional view of rape would be more towards one that involves the victim protesting and the defendant applying force on his victim.

R v Linekar

Similar to that of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo“ where there was an application of force and protesting of the victim. This shows that society generally agrees upon what constitutes rape.

It can acknowledge the term rape is so vast and wide and virtually most acts done can be classified as rape ie R v Ali and Ashraf where the act of grooming the victim and having sex with her despite her express consent to be raped.

Affirmed by academics to be wide. Which can produce a conundrum as it deviates from the clear and traditional meaning of rape.

Charged with fraud and obtaining services dishonestly

As it can be argued the courts in a modern context to overrule Lineaker rather than charge people who do the act similarly to the case to be charged with fraud and obtaining services dishonestly.

On the grounds of looking at the defendant’s conduct and the context.

It would seem he had formed the means reas prior to the act being unemployed and only 17 as opposed if the prosecution could prove he had the 25 pounds sterling prior and whilst the conduct took place. It can be submitted to satisfy the criteria under the Fraud Act 2006 of section 2.

R v Linekar and the Issue of Consent in Law

As there was a false representation made by the defendant under s.2(3) which was done impliedly by making it look as if the defendant had the money supplemented by s2(4) and Explanatory Notes of the Fraud Act 2006 para 14.

Even using the Fraud Law: Government Response to Consultation (2004) can apply as the context the victim was in can be capable of interpretation to the victim’s detriment. Which in this context the defendant knew it was false that he had no money based on s.2(2) (a).

He despite being a 17-year-old and unemployed knew it to be untrue. Supplemented by para 13 of the explanatory notes state of mind.

Even on the precedent of R v Rosemary and Barton (2020) the jury easily inferred that the defendant’s state of mind was dishonest and was by a standard of an “ordinary decent people to be blatantly dishonest.”

R v Linekar

In addition, he intends to at the bare minimum cause a loss to the victim of the 25 pounds based on s.2(b)(i) and(ii) and s.5.

This would be a propionate charge on the grounds it was not the traditional notion of rape and regardless the defendant would get the same punishment of 2 years based on the mitigating factor or a lenient punishment if not more than 12 months based on section s.1(3)(a) or(b) depending on which the prosecution prefers but the most would be 12 months.

This is just considering the total context and compassion towards the defendant who is a young person and unemployed.

It can be submitted that Linekar is a wrongly influenced decision as it was arguably based on liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is the view that women can control their lives and do whatever they want albeit against social conventions i.e. in this context prostitution and will be protected by the courts.

Despite not being too harsh as Papadimitriplious to clear prejudicial toward the defendant by calling him a heartless bigamist indicating possible prejudice. This is why this precedent ought to be abolished.

Freedom of sexuality

It can be submitted that since prostitution is legal and growing due to the acceptance of the freedom of sexuality the courts ought to cater to these scenarios.

If a similar case were to occur the courts ought to convict using fraud unless the means reas was made later to convict via obtaining services dishonestly s.11 of the Fraud Act 2006.

The effect of both charges will not turn the victim into a chattel as pre R v R . rather turn the services they did commercially as an act of business, thus allowing for a just charge.

Also, various parties such as society and judges, in general, need to understand that rape and deceit for sexual acts should not be the same thing on the grounds they are different in terms of carrying out and there would be an unjust label placed on the defendant.

As it ought to be noted society and judges ought to discard the preference of liberal feminism and focus on finding just decisions based on pragmatism when deciding cases.