The sad case of Jennifer Lynne Saunders
What are the lessons from 1991 about the girl who wanted to be seen as a boy?
Jennifer Lynne Saunders appeared at Doncaster Crown Court on the 18th September 1991 and after trial lasting 3 days she was convicted of 2 offences of indecent assault on a female, being contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (this was repealed in 2004, now Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says a person consents if he or she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.)
The complainants were aged 16 and 18 years. Jennifer was sentenced to 6 years detention in a young offenders institution which seems a harsh sentence - she was only 17 years old at the time of the offences, had no previous convictions relating to sexual offences and also had very difficult personal circumstances as a child in care who had been subjected to abuse. Although the judge declared that a long sentence was necessary to ‘deter’ others, the facts of this case were so unusual, that a deterrent sentence seems unnecessary.
She was found to have deceived the two female complainants into believing she was a male and having sex with them - one wondered if instead of a penis a banana or a cucumber had been inserted into her vagina, as it felt ‘sharp’. Saunders simply denied any kind of sexual contact had taken place. She had a lengthy relationship with one of the complainants, who knew her as a boy called James. James was welcomed into the family home and treated by them all as a boy. Jennifer wore ‘male clothes’ and baggy tops and refused to reveal her chest, saying she was embarrassed because she had a boil or had been treated for cancer, and told her girlfriend that she had some kind of operation on her penis and a tube inserted, which explained why it felt ‘different’. Both complainants expressed shock and disbelief on finding out that ‘James’ was in fact ‘Jennifer’ and both were adamant they would not have given consent to any form of sexual activity if they had known.
She sought advice to appeal against her sentence on the basis that it was unduly harsh but strangely I can find nothing at all about her via Google, save for this partial transcript of the evidence she gave at trial. So I do not know if the appeal was ever made, or ever succeeded. But I thought her story was worth revisiting now, 30 years later to see what has changed - or has remained the same - about our attitudes to ‘sex by deception’.
The comments made by the Judge are revealing. One complainant was 15 when she met Jennifer. But she had four previous relationships, 3 involving sexual intercourse with men. It does seem odd that she was so easily fooled into thinking that ‘James’ had a penis. But the Judge framed both complainants as young innocents, forever corrupted by Jennifer’s sexual deceit - even rape would have been better.
‘Your cruel deceit has violated these two young girls. You have blighted their young lives. You have called into question their whole sexual identity. I suspect that both these girls would rather have actually been raped by some young man than have happened to them what you did. At least, that way, with time and counselling, these girls might have been more easily able to forget… you have no conscience about this at all. I assume you must have some sort of bisexual feelings but I cannot believe that anything remotely connected with love or affection can have interfered with your selfish pleasures at the expense of these girls’.
There is much to find shocking in these comments, which seem to be rooted in some deep aversion to lesbians. The suggestion that the girls would rather have been raped by a man than tricked into sexual activity with a lesbian is horrifying and appears deeply homophobic; the assumption that this deceit ‘called into question their whole sexual identity’ is odd, given that one of the complainants at least had had a previous relationship with a woman. It has been suggested by the Lesbian Information Service, commenting on the case in 1992 that in fact it was known Jennifer was a girl, but those in her immediate circle pretended that she was a boy, as an ‘innocent’ way out of potential embarrassment. They comment:
It is clear that this case was not heard properly and that prejudice dominated this enquiry from start to finish: the lack of proper investigation: the willingness to believe the unbelievable and the comments made by the Judge all suggest that Lesbian hatred was the basis for the prosecution and the conviction. This case should now be properly conducted with all of the evidence examined. The prejudice and desire to see Jenny punished, affected the legal judgment and proper consideration of the evidence’
It seems clear that there is much to be grateful that we have left in the past. The mere association with lesbianism appeared to be enough here to enrage the Judge and to attract a particularly harsh sentence for a first time and young offender.
But that is not to say that I endorse ‘sex by deception’. What turns a glorious mutual encounter to a serious crime is the absence of consent. Pretending to your partner that you are one sex as opposed to the other is for many a pretty fundamental deceit. I can understand why some react so strongly. It’s not necessarily going to be a reaction born out of homophobia (although I certainly accept it often is).
A man who lied about having a vasectomy was convicted of rape in 2019 on the basis that this lie had deprived his victim of making an informed choice. This was later over turned on appeal on the basis that consent was given to the man ejaculating into her vagina, regardless of his fertility - leading to Harriet Wistrich to comment:
“The law around vitiation of consent is confused and appears to be open to discriminatory interpretations when women who impersonate men in a sexual encounter can be convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment . . . whereas a man deceiving a woman leading her to become pregnant is not a crime.”
Stonewall has expressed concern at current laws - although interestingly, the most recent three cases have all involved women pretending to be men.
Recent “sex by deception” cases involving trans people and gender identity issues have revealed an alarming lack of clarity around trans people’s rights and obligations to disclose or not disclose their trans history to their sexual partners. These cases demonstrate that it is possible for non-disclosure of a person’s trans status to impair the validity of consent. This leaves a great many trans individuals at risk of prosecution for a criminal offence.
But as Julie Bindel replied
Call me the old-fashioned type of lesbian, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be informed by a potential sexual partner if a penis might be involved.
And this is going to be the stumbling block for those such as Stonewall who campaign to make our actual physical sex something irrelevant or much less important than our claimed ‘gender identity’. Sexual attraction is mysterious, but for many it is triggered by our attraction to certain bodies, rather than the label affixed to that body by its owner.
I hope we have improved as a society over time and teenage girls will no longer feel they have to pretend that their girlfriend is really a boy to avoid social stigma, and that Judges won’t react with such furious revulsion to a crime of deception.
I accept that some people claim that it isn’t a particular body they feel attraction to. But I think for many of us, the power of sexual attraction is something as old as time and ought to be respected - it can’t be wished away or denied as bigotry in order to trick someone into bed with you.
None of the cases of women you refer to seem to me to be "tricking" their "victims". They seem rather to be cases of young Lesbians in deeply homophobic environments, whether family, school, neighbourhoods, church etc, who sought as partners other girls who also had Lesbian feelings, and they consensuelly presented the relationship in a way more "acceptable " to family and friends. Especially in communities where they have no opportunity to contact or meet other Lesbians socially.
I question whether any of the "victims" were genuinely deceived, or felt violated, and were only persuaded to press charges and make statements afterwards by their horrified parents and police?
Thank you for this article, so relevant to the Lesbian erasure we see going on today.