What is the ratio in R v Linekar?

Deception as to matters collateral to sexual intercourse (such as payment) does not vitiate consent. Only deceptions going to the nature of the act or identity of the actor will vitiate consent.

What did the court decide in R v Linekar?

The Court of Appeal quashed a rape conviction where the defendant deceived a prostitute about payment, holding that such deception does not vitiate consent to sexual intercourse.

Why is R v Linekar important for sexual offences law?

It established crucial limits on which deceptions can vitiate consent, clarifying that dishonesty about collateral matters does not necessarily constitute rape.

What is the ratio in R v Linekar?

Deception as to matters collateral to sexual intercourse (such as payment) does not vitiate consent. Only deceptions going to the nature of the act or identity of the actor will vitiate consent.

What did the court decide in R v Linekar?

The Court of Appeal quashed a rape conviction where the defendant deceived a prostitute about payment, holding that such deception does not vitiate consent to sexual intercourse.

Why is R v Linekar important for sexual offences law?

It established crucial limits on which deceptions can vitiate consent, clarifying that dishonesty about collateral matters does not necessarily constitute rape.

Criminal1 min read

R v Linekar

[1995] QB 250Court of Appeal1995

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Deception about payment to prostitute does not vitiate consent to sexual intercourse.”

Facts

Linekar agreed to pay a prostitute for sexual intercourse but never intended to pay and left without paying afterwards. He was charged with rape on the basis that her consent was vitiated by his deception about payment.

Issues

Whether deception as to matters collateral to the sexual act itself (such as payment) can vitiate consent for the purposes of rape charges.

Held

The Court of Appeal quashed the rape conviction. Deception as to payment does not vitiate consent to sexual intercourse, as payment is collateral to the nature and purpose of the act itself.

Significance

This case established important limits on which types of deception can vitiate consent, clarifying that not all dishonesty in sexual encounters constitutes rape. It remains influential in distinguishing between deceptions that do and don't vitiate consent.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Linekar. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Linekar [1995] QB 250 (CA)

Criminal LawSexual OffencesConsentRapeDeception

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.