Defining Deception: Freeing the Church from the Mystical-Miracle Movement

Product Information

Section 74 defines consent as “if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are: The evidence relating to “choice” and the “freedom” to make any particular choice must be approached in a broad common-sense way,” [Lord Judge CJ in F], and Consent should be carefully considered when deciding not only what offence to charge but also whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Sometimes consent is given, or appears to be given, i.e. ostensible consent, but it is not true consent in the particular context in which the offending has occurred, for example in cases where a young complainant has been groomed. It is important to make a distinction between consent and mere submission, acquiescence or compliance.

where a person is employed to care for an elderly or disabled person and has access to that person's bank account but abuses that position by removing funds for his own personal use. (This may also be theft); Kimmel, A. J. (1998). "In defense of deception". American Psychologist, 53(7), 803–805. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from the PsycINFO database.For example, an employee who transferred sensitive commercial information from his office laptop to his home computer while in employment and used it after that employment had ended will commit the offence. At that stage he will no longer be "occupying a position " but he was when the offence was committed (transferring the information intending to make a gain or cause a loss) and so can be prosecuted. Fabrication of facts: This is the most immoral part, where the person lies about materials, misleading information to get a sale. Did the suspect genuinely believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test). However, circumstances will arise where the issues are clear and the offences are serious. If so, prosecution may be required in the public interest. Prosecutors should ensure that the state of affairs between the parties has not changed prior to any trial. This may affect both the public interest and the evidential test.

The issue of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs. Prosecutors must be familiar with a number of key cases on this topic. A complainant does not consent if they are incapacitated through drink. The prosecutor should consider carefully whether the complainant retains the capacity to consent R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804 paragraph 34. A general intention that he or another will commit fraud (meaning an offence under Sections 1-4 of the Act) will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr App R. 7 (CA) the Court of Appeal said: The "position" required by section 4 is one that may be described as a position of trust. It could include company directors, trustees, business partners or employees. In many cases it will be one where there is a legal 'fiduciary' duty; but such a duty is not essential. It is, however, a position that carries something more than a moral obligation.Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. R v Ali and Ashraf [2015] EWCA Crim1279 is of considerable assistance when considering whether to charge non-consensual offences and used the important term “context is all important”. In this case, some guidance was given on how consent should be approached in cases of child sexual exploitation: occupies a position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person The phrase "to defraud creditors of any person" covers the situation where creditors are creditors of the business, but the business is not a legal person. The creditors could be creditors of individuals or of other related companies.