The Problem With Putting Sexual Deception on Trial

In northern England, a young woman named Gayle Newland was found guilty twice of an unusual crime involving sexual deception. Another woman, referred to as “Chloe” and “Miss X” in court papers, claimed that Newland had pretended to be a chronically ill man called Kye Fortune in order to deceive her into a lesbian relationship. Newland would often testify before the jury, presenting a completely different account of events.

She and Miss X were said to be close friends and closeted lesbians, with Kye being a shared fantasy they nurtured over several years. The media, particularly tabloids, portrayed Newland as a predator who tricked her heterosexual friend into a lesbian relationship. Newland's actions were reminiscent of fictional stories involving deception and cross-dressing, such as those found in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night or Virginia Woolf's Orlando.

However, journalist Izabella Scott, whose book The Bed Trick explores the legal and literary aspects of the case, believes that a high-profile trial is not the best way to understand such matters. Trials are essentially storytelling contests, with each side constructing their narrative to win. Scott is more interested in how the "bed trick" phenomenon emerged, its implications for gender and truth, and the public's anxiety surrounding relationships that defy traditional norms.

The Newland case, which combined elements of sexual assault and fraud, was prosecuted under the U.K.'s Sexual Offences Act of 2003, which deemed consent invalid when the defendant intentionally deceived the victim about the nature or purpose of the sexual act. This version of rape was seen as a violation of personal freedom, choice, and selfhood.

What made the Newland case unique was that the first conviction relied on Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act, which pertained to deceit. The second conviction was based on R v. McNally, which ruled that gender deception could invalidate consent. Miss X's allegations extended beyond a simple violation of "no means no," as she claimed she had been deceived, and her consent was contingent upon the lie.

Miss X had a difficult background, including a history of abuse, which might have made her more vulnerable to Newland's deception. Newland had come up with the "Kye Fortune" persona online at the age of 13, using photos and videos from a man named Carlo, eventually passing it off as a real person. Other women had also fallen for "Kye" online before realizing their correspondent was not a man.

After the 2017 conviction, jurors discovered that Newland had also been convicted of financial fraud. Despite these inconsistencies, Newland remained steadfast in her story, claiming that she and Miss X met at a gay bar, came out to each other, and embarked on the "Kye" fantasy together, even though they still felt the need to maintain their closeted status.

Newland had a privileged upbringing, with loving parents, her own car, and an allowance. However, she claimed that at her all-girls private school, the term "lesbian" was considered an insult, which may have contributed to her feelings of shame about her sexuality. Scott is sympathetic towards Newland, allowing her the benefit of the doubt that the media and legal system were unable or unwilling to provide.

Reading through the transcripts, Scott found the case to be an absurd mixture of legal and literary elements, akin to Nikolai Gogol's "The Nose." The trial highlighted the absurdity of the situation, with both parties entering a topsy-turvy world clouded by fantasy, hope, and delusion.