A transgender woman has gone on trial at Teesside Crown Court accused of sexual assault by concealing from a man that she had male genitalia during a sexual encounter.
Ciara Watkin, 21, from Thornaby, Teesside, allegedly performed sex acts on her male date after they had exchanged messages on Snapchat, but refused to let him touch her intimately, claiming she was on her period, the court heard.
The alleged victim only discovered Watkin was transgender when she later messaged him to confess she had a “massive secret” to reveal. When he asked if she was pregnant, she responded: “I’m trans. I’m sorry I didn’t tell you.”
Prosecutor Paul Reid told the jury that the man’s shocked response included messages saying “WTF. So you have a d***?” and “OMFG. I feel ill,” before he reported the incident to police.
The Prosecution Case
Mr Reid told Teesside Crown Court: “The defendant had concealed from the man that she had a penis, during their brief relationship. The man told the police that if he had known Watkin was transgender, he would not have consented. He said: ‘I don’t swing that way’.”
The court heard that Watkin’s Snapchat profile used a female cartoon avatar and that there had been no discussion about sexuality or gender during their online exchanges before they met at a house in Thornaby several years ago.
When arrested, Watkin told officers: “Me and him had sex without me telling him I was a boy. When I let him know I was a different gender, he didn’t like it.”
Mr Reid added: “She agreed that sexual activity had taken place.”
Text Message Exchange
The jury was read messages sent between the pair after their encounter. When Watkin revealed her “massive secret”, the conversation unfolded with the alleged victim asking if she was pregnant, to which Watkin replied: “I’m trans. I’m sorry I didn’t tell you.”
The man’s response of “WTF. So you have a d***?” was repeated in his messages before Watkin added: “That’s why I haven’t s****** you.”
The alleged victim then texted: “OMFG. I feel ill,” before going to police to report the incident.
Legal Complexities
The case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding consent and disclosure of gender history in sexual encounters. Under UK law, the question of whether non-disclosure of transgender status vitiates consent remains contentious and legally complex.
The Crown Prosecution Service updated its guidance in December 2024, clarifying that “there is no difference between a deliberate deception about birth sex and a failure to disclose birth sex” when considering whether consent has been vitiated. However, the guidance also states that “not every situation where a trans or non-binary person fails to disclose their sex will involve a criminal offence.”
Legal precedent from cases such as R v McNally has established that deception as to gender can vitiate consent in certain circumstances. However, prosecutors must prove that the deception was so closely connected to the sexual act that it deprived the complainant of their freedom to choose whether to have sexual relations.
Broader Legal Context
The case comes amid ongoing debate about transgender rights and disclosure obligations in intimate relationships. Critics of prosecutions based on non-disclosure argue that transgender people are being subjected to unique disclosure requirements not placed on other groups.
Legal scholar Alex Sharpe has argued that such prosecutions can be discriminatory, noting that “non-disclosure of bisexuality, mixed-race status, religious faith, or criminal convictions will produce no legal consequences” under current law, yet transgender people face potential criminal liability for non-disclosure.
The Scottish Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has issued guidance stating that transgender people “may not consider there has been any deception at all because they simply do not identify with the gender assigned at birth but rather identify with a different gender and therefore often there may be no intention to deceive.
The Defence Position
Watkin, who has been described in court documents as being from Stockton, denies two counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual assault by penetration. The trial is ongoing at Teesside Crown Court.
The case raises fundamental questions about consent, identity, and disclosure in sexual relationships. While the prosecution argues that the alleged victim’s consent was vitiated by the non-disclosure of Watkin’s biological sex, defence arguments in similar cases have centred on whether such non-disclosure constitutes the kind of deception that negates consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Legal Implications
If convicted, Watkin could face significant penalties. Sexual assault by touching carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment if tried in Crown Court, while assault by penetration carries a maximum of life imprisonment.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how the law treats non-disclosure of gender history in sexual encounters. Currently, there have been at least ten prosecutions since 2012 involving non-disclosure of gender history, with all defendants being convicted, though some convictions were based solely on non-disclosure itself.
Legal experts continue to debate whether requiring disclosure of transgender status represents discrimination under Article 14 (no discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The trial continues.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
