Gayle Newland: Lawyers for woman who duped female lover into thinking she was a man consider appeal

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

Lawyers for Gayle Newland, the young woman jailed for eight years for duping a female lover into thinking she was a man to embark on a sexual relationship, are considering an appeal amid claims her sentence was too harsh.

Legal experts have warned that the severity of the jail term created a “dangerous precedent” for transgendered people, pointing out that Newland’s sexual assault jail term was tougher than some given to people convicted of manslaughter or child rape.

Psychiatric and pre-sentence reports revealed Newland had first seen a psychiatrist aged 15 regarding her feelings of gender and sexuality confusion.

The 25-year-old went on to mislead a fellow student at Chester University by posing online as a boy. After an “intense” two-year relationship conducted over the phone and via email, the couple met and had sex 10 times – with Newland’s partner blindfolded.

Newland, who used bandages to bind her breasts, a swimming costume to reduce her curves and a “prosthetic penis”, was discovered when the victim became suspicious and took off the blindfold.

Judge Roger Dutton said her offences against a “vulnerable” victim were “a callous breach of trust” that would have a lasting impact. But Dr Samantha Pegg, of Nottingham Law School, criticised the sentence as “cruel”.

“The deception conduct was part and parcel of Gayle Newland maintaining the male persona she had adopted,” she said. “The sexual activity was only criminal as a result of this deception and it should not be used exacerbate her culpability. To use sexual and gender confusion as a basis for criminal liability was – in my opinion – a step too far; to use it to further justify a lengthy sentence is cruel.”

Other lawyers familiar with the case criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing the sexual assault by penetration charges. But some defended the judge’s jail term, pointing out the sentencing guidelines recommend a starting point of eight years custody which could be reduced to five or increased to 13.