Criminal law - sexual assault PQ

Here's the PQ, I'm having an issue with...
Reginald was the leader of a cult who liked to brainwash women into joining the cult so he could have sex with them. He had persuaded Tracey to join the cult and she had been a member for three months. All the members of the cult lived together in a big house. One evening, Reginald decided it was time to have sex with Tracey and went into her bedroom. Tracey suffered from migraine headaches and he told her that he had mystical powers and that if she let him put his penis in her mouth, her migraines would stop. Tracey believed him and let him put his penis in her mouth.

Advise Reginald as to his liability


And here's how I've planned it out so far...
Most likely to be charged with a s1 SOA 2003 offence (Rape) because of the following:

AR – D who penetrates with his penis, the vagina, anus or mouth of and V does not consent:
Penetration by penis of mouth - s1(1)(a)
There was consent, thus not directly fulfilling the requirement under s1(1)(b) – however:

MR – D intends to penetrate, and does not reasonably believe that V consents:
D intends to penetrate - s1(1)(a)
Defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim consented to the penetration: s1(1)(c)
[INDENT]However, arguable to suggest that she did consent - s1(2) - ‘whether a belief is reasonable is determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps the defendant has taken to ascertain whether the victim consent.’[/INDENT]
[INDENT][INDENT]Arguable to suggest that such consent was received only by deception[/INDENT][/INDENT]


I don't quite fully understand when I should be using the presumptions (both evidential and conclusive), if at all.
Any tips on how to approach this?

Many thanks

It's been a few years since I did Crim, but I think s.76 is relevant here - D deceived V as to the quality of the act. She understood its nature (him putting his penis in her mouth), but not the "quality" (she thought it was to cure her headaches, not for his sexual gratification). Check out cases like Tabassum and Williams (older case concerned a singing teacher which is more similar than Tabassum to these facts).

I'd be inclined to use the following structure, which is similar to yours.

1. Identify possible offence (rape)
2. Set out AR of offence and decide if present (yes)
3. Set out "lack of consent" requirement
4. Discuss what "consent" means (understanding of nature and quality of the act - see s.74, I think)
5. Do any of the evidential/conclusive presumptions apply on these facts?


Hope this is of some help!