Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.2007.80.3.279 |
| Author | Jane Creaton |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
JANE CREATON
Legal Correspondent
Email: jane.creaton@port.ac.uk
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Sexual Intercourse Obtained by Deception
R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
11 July 2007
Irrebuttable presumptions; procuring intercourse through
deception; rape; sexual offences; Sexual Offences Act 1956,
s. 3(1); Sexual Offences Act 2003, ss 74 and 76(2)(a)
This was an appeal against convictions of procurement to have
sexual intercourse under false pretences, rape and blackmail. The
appellant also appealed against the sentence of eight months’
imprisonment that had been imposed.
The facts
The appellant, Harvinder Singh Jheeta, met the complainant at
college and they began a sexual relationship in 2002. Several
months later, the complainant began to receive threatening text
messages and calls on her mobile phone and when they con-
tinued, she decided to involve the police. The appellant was
responsible for all the calls and messages and when the com-
plainant confided in him he offered to lodge a complaint with the
police on her behalf. He subsequently sent text messages to her
in which he pretended to be several different police officers.
These messages asked the complainant for money to cover the
costs of security cover and to provide statements by text. When
she later tried to break off her relationship with the appellant, she
received messages telling her that she must continue the relation-
ship and that she would be fined if she did not have sexual
intercourse with him. She had sexual intercourse with the appel-
lant on approximately 50 occasions over a four-year period as a
result of these messages. The complainant eventually went to the
police in March 2006 after her family received letters accusing
her of promiscuous behaviour. The appellant was arrested and
admitted that the complainant had intercourse with him on
several occasions because of the fictitious texts rather than
because she truly consented. His counsel advised him that his
actions fell within s. 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which
The Police Journal, Volume 80 (2007) 279
To continue reading
Request your trial