The proper scope of 'deceit or any fraudulent means' in s 319(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA) remains unresolved. The majority did not need to determine the question because the prosecution case was based on threats and intimidation. EM Heenan AJA's dissent provides the most detailed analysis, favouring a narrow construction confining vitiating fraud to the nature and purpose of the sexual act or the identity of the sexual partner, consistent with the Papadimitropoulos principle. The question whether fraudulent impersonation of a police officer, without accompanying threats or intimidation, can vitiate consent under s 319(2)(a) remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.