A transgender woman has been jailed after a Teesside jury found she sexually assaulted a man by concealing that she had male genitalia, with prosecutors arguing the deception meant he could not give informed consent to the sexual activity. Ciara Watkin, 21, was sentenced on 10 October to 21 months’ imprisonment following her August conviction for two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by penetration arising from encounters in June 2022. The case was heard at Teesside Crown Court after the pair met on Snapchat and arranged to spend time together, during which Watkin performed sexual acts while preventing the complainant from touching her below the waist; days later, she disclosed by text that she was transgender. The man told investigators he would not have agreed to sexual activity had he known Watkin was transgender.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Watkin and the complainant, who were both 21 at the time, first exchanged messages over Snapchat before meeting at a house in Thornaby, North Yorkshire. Prosecutors said Watkin stopped the man from touching her intimate areas, telling him she was on her period, and later went to his home where further sexual activity occurred. After cutting off contact, Watkin resumed messaging and told him she was transgender and had male genitalia. The complainant reported the disclosure to police and said he would not have taken part in sexual activity had he known those facts.
Jurors at Teesside Crown Court convicted Watkin in August after deliberating for just over an hour, the CPS said. The offences centred on whether the complainant’s consent was valid when, as prosecutors argued, he was misled about a material fact relevant to his choice to participate in sexual activity. The CPS North East press notice stated: “It is clear from the evidence in this case that, 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 to him, it would not have been possible for him to give informed consent.” The agency said the assaults had “a significant impact on the victim’s mental wellbeing.”
Watkin was sentenced on Friday after pre-sentence reports were prepared. Coverage of the hearing confirmed the 21-month custodial term, following the earlier conviction on two counts of sexual assault and one of assault by penetration. The sentence reflects the court’s assessment of culpability and harm under England and Wales sentencing guidelines for sexual offences, in a case the CPS characterised as resting on deception that vitiated consent.
The prosecution’s account, set out in the CPS statement, described a sequence in which the complainant believed he was engaging in sexual activity with a woman who was biologically female, an understanding reinforced by the assertion that Watkin was menstruating when he attempted intimate contact. Only after the encounters did Watkin disclose that she was transgender and had not undergone genital surgery. Prosecutors said this belated disclosure prompted the complainant’s realisation that he had been misled about a central fact and informed his decision to contact police.
Senior Crown Prosecutor Sarah Nelson, of CPS North East, said investigators concluded there had been no attempt by Watkin to tell the complainant she was transgender before sexual activity took place. Nelson said the absence of disclosure meant the complainant could not consent “by choice” within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Her statement added that the CPS hoped the verdict would provide some measure of comfort to the complainant, who reported a significant toll on his mental health. The remarks formed part of an official news release issued on the day of conviction.
The case proceeded against the backdrop of updated CPS guidance on “deception as to sex,” published in late 2024, which clarifies when deception can negate consent. The guidance says prosecutors should consider whether a complainant was aware of the suspect’s birth sex and therefore able to consent “by choice”; it also notes there is no expectation on a complainant to verify a partner’s sex before sexual activity. While each case turns on its facts, the document frames non-disclosure of birth sex—where that fact is material to the complainant’s decision—as capable of amounting to deception vitiating consent, depending on the evidence.
Watkin’s conviction follows a cluster of recent English cases in which deception about sex or identity has been found by courts to invalidate consent. The CPS pointed to the elements it said applied here: the complainant’s clear evidence that he would not have engaged in sexual activity had he known the truth; messages and testimony establishing the chronology of disclosure; and behaviour during the encounters that prosecutors said was designed to prevent the complainant discovering Watkin’s genital status. In the prosecution’s view, these factors together showed the complainant could not, and did not, consent by choice to what occurred.
At trial, the defence case—as reported in open court accounts—was that the complainant either knew or should have known Watkin was transgender, and that the sexual activity was consensual. Jurors rejected that account, convicting on all three counts after hearing evidence about the messages, the meetings in Thornaby and at the complainant’s home, and the timing and content of the subsequent disclosure. The court then adjourned for pre-sentence reports before imposing the custodial term on 10 October.
The CPS said the verdict underlined that consent in law requires freedom and capacity as well as choice informed by the facts material to a person’s decision to engage in sexual activity. In the North East press notice, prosecutors framed the case as an application of those principles rather than a referendum on transgender identity or rights. “Sexual violence is a crime, no matter who commits it or where it happens,” the CPS page added in a related section for victims and witnesses.
The complainant’s age was recorded by prosecutors as 21 at the time of the events, aligning with the chronology set out in the CPS summary of evidence. Authorities said he cooperated with the investigation after receiving the text disclosure, providing messages and an account to detectives that clarified his understanding at the time of the sexual activity and his reasons for reporting the matter. Jurors were told he would not have consented had he known Watkin was transgender, a point that prosecutors said was decisive for the legal analysis of consent.
The sentencing outcome places Watkin on the pathway of post-release monitoring that typically follows terms imposed for sexual offences, though the court’s full ancillary orders were not immediately detailed in official summaries available at publication time. The custodial term itself, however, was reported in coverage of the hearing and reflects the court’s view of seriousness given the combination of deception, the nature of the sexual activity and the complainant’s evidence of harm.
The case has also drawn attention to the CPS’s evolving public guidance on deception and consent, a topic the service consulted on before the 2024 update. The published guidance emphasises that prosecutors must assess the evidence, the complainant’s account of choice, and whether any deception was intentional, material and causative of the sexual activity. In Watkin’s case, the CPS said the evidence satisfied those tests: there was no disclosure before the sexual acts; steps were taken that prevented discovery; and the complainant stated unequivocally that knowledge of the truth would have prevented him from consenting.
Watkin’s conviction and sentence were the culmination of a two-stage process that began with the jury’s August verdicts and concluded at the October hearing. The CPS North East area handled the prosecution and released the principal factual summary of the case. The agency’s statement records that Watkin was found guilty of two charges of sexual assault and one of assault by penetration, all relating to acts she performed on the complainant over a number of days. It also records the Snapchat communications, the meetings in Thornaby and at the complainant’s home, the “period” assertion, and the later text message disclosure that led to the police report.
The conviction contributes to a developing line of cases in England and Wales in which deception about identity or material facts has been accepted by courts as vitiating consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The CPS’s post-trial remarks avoided broader commentary and focused on the complainant’s evidence and the sufficiency of proof. With sentence now passed, the case returns to routine criminal justice processes: notification requirements and supervision tied to the offences, and any appeal steps the defence may initiate. No appeal details were immediately available from official sources.
Officials and victim-support materials linked by the CPS reiterated the service’s standard message to those considering reporting sexual offences: that support is available regardless of the identities of those involved and that the law’s touchstone is consent by choice. In setting out its position on deception as to sex, the CPS guidance further states there is no burden on a complainant to establish a partner’s sex before agreeing to sexual activity. That point framed, in prosecutors’ telling, why the complainant’s account of his understanding at the time—and the impact of later learning the truth—was pivotal to the jury’s verdicts and the sentence imposed. (Crown Prosecution Service)
