R v Pryor

In the Supreme Court, Pryor appealed against his conviction for rape. The appellant entered the complainant's home, with whom he had previously had consensual sexual relations. The complainant believed she was engaging in consensual sex with her partner, but in fact, it was the appellant. The appellant was convicted of rape under section 347 of the Criminal Code as at 18 August 1996, on the basis that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse because she believed it was her partner with whom she was having sex.

The legal issue before the court was whether the identity of the person with whom the complainant believed she was engaging in sexual activity was relevant to whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse. The court considered whether the facts established that the complainant's consent was obtained by deception, and if so, whether this was enough to establish that the sexual intercourse was without the complainant's consent.

The court found that the identity of the person with whom the complainant believed she was engaging in sexual activity was not relevant to whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse. The court held that the complainant's consent was obtained by deception, and that this was enough to establish that the sexual intercourse was without the complainant's consent. The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.