Woman who pretended to be a man to sleep with a female friend, jailed for 8 year

[stephaniec]

Woman who pretended to be a man to sleep with a female friend, jailed for 8 years

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/12/woman-who-pretended-to-be-a-man-to-sleep-with-a-female-friend-jailed-for-8-years/

Pink News/By Joseph Patrick McCormick   11/12/2015

"A woman who pretended to be a man in order to have sex with a fellow student, has been jailed for eight years.

Gayle Dawn Newland, 25, was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault over the incidents in 2013, while both studied at the University of Chester. She was cleared of two further charges. "

[suzifrommd]

Even if you don't agree with what they did, eight years seems really excessive for a crime where there was no coercion and no loss of property.

[Deborah]

The whole thing was strange but I don't see any crime there at all.  She shouldn't have been charged.

[Tysilio]

Here is a link to the comments the judge made before sentencing Ms. Newland: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Gayle-Dawn-Newland-16413-1.law

Was a crime committed? Yes, if you think that the "consensual" part of consensual sex has any meaning. The conviction hinges on the fact that the victim did not consent to being penetrated with a prosthetic penis.  The judge had a lot to say on the issue of the long-term and entirely selfish deception practiced on the victim, and he clearly felt that this aggravated the serious nature of the repeated assaults.

Ms. Newland used the only defense available to her, which is that the victim knew all along that she was really a woman, but the jury didn't believe her. After reading accounts of the lengths she went to in creating and maintaining a male persona (including, among other things, fake messages from "relatives" of that persona), I think the jury was probably right.  Was the victim naive, gullible, and, in her own words, "stupid"?  Maybe, but that makes her no less a victim.

I think the prosecutor summed it up in these comments from his closing statement:

"We all have different backgrounds, different experiences of life. We may have different jobs, different experiences of family life. There may be cultural differences and we may have different sexualities.

"But each one of us has something in common, we all have the absolute right and freedom to choose when and in what circumstances we agree to have sexual intercourse with another person. It is a fundamental right in a civilised society and a right protected by law."
http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-prosthetic-penis-trial-gayle-10035773

[sparrow]

I hate the precedent that this sets.  It's just such a narrow distinction to a judge or juror who doesn't understand gender identity.  I happen to agree with the judge in this case, as it seems that the woman was deliberately deceiving her friend.

[emma-f]

I agree its a dangerous precedent depending on what the offending act was. If it was that she had consented to sex with a penis, and not a prosthetic, then its prob ok. If, however, its that consent can be vitiated by way of misrepresentation as to gender (on the basis that the woman only consented to sex with a male) thats very dangerous, esp for the stealth TS. could this ever be extended to failure to disclose TS status?

[bmapwv]

There have been a few instances of FTMs being prosecuted - both in Scotland IIRC - but the circumstances for both  had some oddities.

I know of no MTFs being prosecuted

[suzifrommd]

could this ever be extended to failure to disclose TS status?

Sounds like it could.

I wonder if this same precedent could be applied to a man (cis or trans) who has penile implants. Could a partner prosecute saying "you never told me you had implants. I didn't consent to be penetrated by an implant"?

Could this be applied to other sexual acts? "You never told me you had breast forms when I touched your breasts. I never consented to foreplay using a breast from." Or BA implants?

[emma-f]

The more i think about this the more im concerned about where the line is. Assuming a similar case (so as not to comment on thr victim in this case) what if the woman was racist and the man, who she thought was white, was in fact black. Would there be an offence? This might be one to keep an eye on as to how its applied

[AnonyMs]

Even if you don't agree with what they did, eight years seems really excessive for a crime where there was no coercion and no loss of property.

I can't say I pay much attention to the law, but this sentence seems right up there with murder and rape, if not worse than some cases. How does that work? I can't help but wonder if the judge is homophobic or something.

[KathyLauren]

I don't know about the sentence - it might be a bit harsh.  But I have no problem at all with the conviction.  The defendant misrepresented herself in order to have sex with someone who would not otherwise have consented to it.

The relevance here is that it fuels the hatred of the trans-phobes, who think that that is what we do.

[Gladys-phylis]

Sounds like it could.

I wonder if this same precedent could be applied to a man (cis or trans) who has penile implants. Could a partner prosecute saying "you never told me you had implants. I didn't consent to be penetrated by an implant"?

Could this be applied to other sexual acts? "You never told me you had breast forms when I touched your breasts. I never consented to foreplay using a breast from." Or BA implants?

What if it was a cis-male who claimed he had a large penis and used a prosthetic one to hide that he really didn't. Would 8 years seem appropriate? If not, then What is the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tysilio]

...this sentence seems right up there with murder and rape, if not worse than some cases. How does that work?

Rape, in the UK, is defined as penetration by a biological penis. The definition of sexual assault is broader, and includes penetration by objects:

Assault by penetration:
The Sexual Offences Act outlines that Assault by penetration is illegal; this means that it is an offence for a male or female to penetrate the vagina or anus of another person without their consent. Penetration can be by a part of the body, e.g. fingers, or anything else that is not a body part, used for the purpose of penetration (with sexual intent).(source)

The victim in this case did not consent to being penetrated by a prosthetic penis or to having sex with a woman.  The victim herself said that she "would rather have been raped by a man," i.e. with a biological penis (source).

I am puzzled as to what part of this is so hard to understand.

[stephaniec]

I could be wrong , but this person went to an extreme to deceive . I mean if she met the person as herself just with men's clothes and hair cut and could seem to be male She basically forced the issue with the blindfold and to give that person no reasonable opt out point until way too late, Bernie Madoff comes to mind, Should Bernie gotten a life sentence. I think 8 years seems harsh. Honestly how stupid can you be putting on a blindfold. The person could of had a butcher knife looking for a meal.

[Tysilio]

You're right, Stephanie, the extent of deception here is astonishing, as is the complexity of the tactics employed by Newland -- it's simply not credible that this was some sort of role-playing game to which both parties consented.

But "the victim should have known better" is no kind of defense, nor is it an argument for a lighter sentence. Newland went to incredible lengths to deceive someone who clearly was naive, gullible, and emotionally vulnerable. To my mind, that makes the crime worse; to say otherwise is to blame the victim.

[AnonyMs]

According to google 8 years is the average sentence for rape in the UK a few years ago, 5 is the starting point, and there's various factors that adjust it up and down. Given the lack of extreme violence that normally accompanies rape I'd have thought it would be less than average.

This women went to extreme measures to pretend to be a man. Perhaps she's transgender? I'd have thought that based off this it could be argued (and probably will) that a m2f having sex with a man is also rape. Presumably some men would never have sex with a transwomen, if only they'd known, and will claim rape and psychological harm. That would introduce a whole new set of problems to being stealth.

[emma-f]

According to google 8 years is the average sentence for rape in the UK a few years ago, 5 is the starting point, and there's various factors that adjust it up and down. Given the lack of extreme violence that normally accompanies rape I'd have thought it would be less than average.

This women went to extreme measures to pretend to be a man. Perhaps she's transgender? I'd have thought that based off this it could be argued (and probably will) that a m2f having sex with a man is also rape. Presumably some men would never have sex with a transwomen, if only they'd known, and will claim rape and psychological harm. That would introduce a whole new set of problems to being stealth.

That's exactly my concern, but maybe the answer lies in the fact that the act was not consented to, regardless of the identity, as she did not consent to penetration by a prosthetic. As analogy, in the AIDS/HIV non disclosure cases, they were as I understand it charged as GBH rather than rape / sexual assault, presumably as the act was consensual (even though the women would undoubtedly say that they would not have done the act had they known of the aids/hiv positive status) but the GBH offence was made out as the accused knew that he could cause serious harm and either intended to or was reckless as to the same. With the stealth MTF the act itself would be consensual. I certainly have the concern though as to how this is being reported and how it might be applied.

[AnonyMs]

I just read the links above, and I find the entire thing a bit confusing. She's guilty of sexual assault, not rape. The assault itself is not what I'd initially think of as assault as there doesn't seem to be any physical harm, but there is a good deal of manipulation that went along with it. It looks like the victim suffered mentally rather than physically, and for that she got 8 years. I've no idea if you can get 8 years for a mental assault, but they got her for the physical one, perhaps because they could. I don't really have a clue though, its not my area of expertise.

If I were a stealth trans-women I'd not like to be standing in front of a jury trying to explain why my case was different to this one. If it hinged on the penetration by a prosthetic and you got off for alone then something somewhere is wrong.

[CaptainxTatsuo]

Yea I agree that 8 years is
overkill!

[Peep]

At first i thought 8 years was too much but then if this was any other kind of sexual assault with this amount of deception i would probably say three or five years wasn't quite enough?

It's also kind of sad because if she is genuinely dysphoric she might not get the help she needs... if there was sexuality and gender education in schools maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen at all?