STUDENT ID: 19716

Case Name and Citation

R v Lawrance [2020]EWCA Crim 971, [2020] WLR(D) 440, [2020] WLR 5025.

Court and Judges

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, LCJ
Ian Burnett [Baron Burnett of Maldon], The Hon MRS Justice Cutts DBE, and The Hon
MRS Justice Tipples DBE).

Parties
Prosecution: The Crown (represented by the Crown Prosecution Service)
Appellant: Mr. Jason Lawrance

Material facts
According to the facts of the case, Lawrance met the victim in 2014 on an online dating site.
Sex messages and phone calls started between them. Lawrence then told the victim that she
had a vasectomy. For these reasons, he then agreed to have unprotected sex with her, even
though she would have otherwise insisted on using protection. The victim clarified on the
terms that she was not keen on conceiving whereas Lawrance repeatedly assured on account
that he ‘had the snip’.
Her declaration was that before the sexual relations initiated, she requested most extreme
confirmation that the defendant had gone through a vasectomy to which repeatedly
guaranteed her that he had, as she had made it clear that she would have rather not faced the
risk of getting pregnant. Lawrence texted her on the next morning, saying, "I have a
confession. I am still fertile, sorry." The victim later discovered that she had conceived and
went on to have it ended. Lawrance was convicted of rape according to the jury but he argued
that the victim gave her consent anyways.

Question(s) of Law/Issue(s)
The issues before the court are:
i. Does lying about a person's fertility take away their consent to sex?

Decisions
Jason Lawrance's rape conviction got quashed as the Court of Appeal held for him. The court
ruled that they respectfully disagreed with the judge because lying about the appellant's
fertility did not invalidate the consent. Therefore, the appeal prevailed on the first ground
(Lord Burnett CJ, Cutts, Drinks JJ at 43).
Detailed Reasons for the decisions
The reasoning found in the judgment is on the grounds that the defendant applied for a
dismissal by arguing that not every misrepresentation that an individual consents to is
sufficient to invalidate, particularly in the context of sexual relations.

In the case Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, the defendant lied about wearing
protection or maybe removed it in the process of sexual intercourse and R (F) v Director of
Public Prosecutions in which the defendant lied about withdrawing before ejaculation.

The Ratio Decidendi

In R v Jason Lawrance the ratio decidendi was based on the defendant's appeal against his
convictions for sexual offenses. The Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of properly
guiding the jury on issues of consent and discussed the admissibility of evidence related to
the plaintiff's sexual history. The decision clarifies legal principles regarding consent and
evidence that will have implications for future cases.