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

Product Information

A representation can be made by omission, for example, by omitting to mention previous convictions or County Court Judgements on an application form.

In a case where a vulnerable or immature individual has been groomed, the question of whether real or proper consent was given will usually be for the jury unless the evidence clearly indicates that proper consent was given. R v Hysa [2007] EWCA Crim 2056 In the case of stolen documents the false representation may be that the defendant was lawfully in possession of the cheque/credit card/book and entitled to use it or that he was the person named on the cheque/credit card/book and entitled to use it. Griffith, Jeremy (2011). The Book of Real Answers to Everything! – Why do people lie?. ISBN 978-1-74129-007-3.Taqiya is an Islamic juridical term for the cases in which a Muslim is allowed to lie under the circumstance when need to deny their faith due to force or when faced with persecution. [41] The concept mainly followed by Shi'ite sect, but it varies "significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes", and has been evoked by critics of Islam to portray the faith allowing dishonesty. [42] In philosophy [ edit ]

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). a business has continued to trade and run up debts knowing that there was no reasonable prospect of those creditors ever being paid; Prosecutors are advised to view ‘Consent in Sexual Cases' - which can be accessed via the Prosecution College. Sexual Offences Act 2003 Relevance to consent issue of a provable lie told by the defendant regarding whether sexual intercourse took place. In R v Hysa [2007] EWCA Crim 2056, the Court of Appeal the jury is entitled when considering the issue of consent to bear in mind any lies, if that is what the jury find them to be, told by the defendant as to whether he had sex with the complainant on the night in question. If the jury decided he lied because he knew the complainant was too drunk to consent or knew that she in fact did not consent, that would undoubtedly help them in their task of assessing whether he raped her. Consent and penetration as a continuing actLoss" includes a loss by not getting what one might get as well as a loss by parting with what one has (Section 5 (4)). A "representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of the person making the representation or any other person (Section 2 (3)). An example of the latter might be where a defendant claims that a third party intends to carry out a certain course of action perhaps to make a will in someone's favour. It may be difficult to prove to the necessary standard that the Defendant knew the state of mind of a third party, but easier to prove that he knew what it might be. It is important to note that not every case will amount to rape where a condom is not worn even though there was a prior agreement to use one. Prosecutors must consider the overall context in which the offence is alleged to have taken place and the extent to which the actions of the defendant negate the freedom to choose of the complainant or their sexual autonomy. Similarly, every instance where the suspect ejaculates inside the vagina contrary to the wishes of the complainant will not necessarily vitiate consent. The law applies in all situations and is not limited to those which might also amount to incidents of domestic abuse. Consent in Child Sexual Exploitation cases Section 75 lists the circumstances in which rebuttable evidential presumptions about the absence of consent apply. If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1 - 4), and any of the circumstances specified in section 75(2) existed, and the defendant knew they existed, then: (i) the complainant is to be taken not to have consented and (ii) the Defendant is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless in either case, sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to the contrary.

Christensen, L (1988). "Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 14 (4): 664–675. doi: 10.1177/0146167288144002. S2CID 145114044. Bassett, Rodney L.; Basinger, David; & Livermore, Paul. (1992, December). Lying in the Laboratory: Deception in Human Research from a Psychological, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives. ASA3.org

Ortmann, A. & Hertwig, R. (1998). "The question remains: Is deception acceptable?" American Psychologist, 53(7), 806–807. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from the PsycINFO database.

Rowatt, W. C.; Cunninghan, M. R.; Druen, P. B. (1998). "Deception to get a date". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24 (11): 1228–1242. doi: 10.1177/01461672982411009. S2CID 144546956. Whether the relationship that would create any legal duty exists on the facts alleged is a matter for the jury directed by the judge; Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal). Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost. Drafting the charge The wording draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with an offence.Section 76 provides two conclusive presumptions that the complainant did not consent to the activity and the defendant did not reasonably believe that the complainant consented.