Transgender woman hid identity before sex — convicted of assault at Teesside Crown Court
A transgender woman who failed to disclose her gender identity before engaging in sexual activity has been convicted of sexual assault at Teesside Crown Court.
Ciara Watkin, 21, of Walton Street, Stockton-on-Tees, was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by penetration. The offences took place in June 2022.
How the case unfolded
The court heard that Watkin and the 21-year-old complainant met via Snapchat. They arranged to meet at a house in Thornaby after exchanging messages.
After drinking together, they went to a bedroom. Watkin told him she was on her period and prevented him from touching her below the waist, before carrying out sexual acts.
Days later, Watkin went to the complainant’s home and further sexual activity took place.
Only afterwards did Watkin disclose her transgender status in a text message, revealing she had male genitalia. The complainant told police he would not have consented had he known.
Crown Prosecution Service statement
Sarah Nelson, Senior Crown Prosecutor for CPS North East, said:
“Prior to engaging in sexual activity with the victim, Watkin had made no attempt to inform him of her transgender status. By failing to disclose this, it would not have been possible for him to give informed consent.
“The victim has made clear he would not have engaged in sexual activity had he known that Watkin was transgender. These events have had a significant impact on his mental wellbeing.”
Next steps
Watkin will be sentenced on 10 October at Teesside Crown Court.
Access to the Law: Deception and Consent
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines consent as agreement by choice, with the freedom and capacity to choose.
Case law has established how deception can affect consent:
- R v McNally (2013): The Court of Appeal ruled that deception as to gender identity can vitiate consent. Consent is not valid if based on a fundamental misrepresentation.
- R v Lawrance (2020): The Court of Appeal clarified that deception must relate to the “nature or purpose” of the act, or undermine the complainant’s freedom to choose.
In Watkin’s case, the jury found that the failure to disclose transgender status removed the complainant’s ability to give informed consent. The verdict follows the legal reasoning set out in McNally.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
