feminist legal theory is constructed out of the combination of analytical and political /ethical

claims .analytically the claim is that sex, gender is one important social structure or discourse or excess
of social differentiation and is hence slightly to characterize the influence the shape of law . politically
and ethically feminist starts out form the assumption that the ways in which sex/gender has shaped the
world ,including through law have been politically and ethically problematic i.e., it consists not just in
differentiation but in domination ,oppression and discrimination of women ( Emily Jackson and Nicola
Lacey ) it argues that the manner in which the society and its institution are constructed to maintain the
subordination of women to men ,asking why status co -exist as it does ,while amplifying the voices and
lift experiences of women with an aim to abolish the hegemony of the socially constructed patriarchy
( Clare Dalton ) . Patrica A Cain offers the categorization of feminism into four schools of though :
liberal ,radical ,cultural and post modern .facts of R V Monica R V Monica involved a judicial review of
the crown prosecution service decision not to prosecute former undercover police officer ,Andrew
bowling ,for rape ,indecent assault and misconduct in public office .Bowling using a false identity
infiltrated an activist group and engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica who latter claim that she
would have consented had she known bowling’s true identity . the court rules that the deception about
identity does not vitiate consent under existing rape law up holding the CPS decision . the case raised
significant feminist concern about consent ,state -sanctioned deception and gender power dynamics in
law and enforcement .

Liberal feminism focus on the formal legal equality ,individual rights and reforms within existing legal
structures .it argues that women should have equal excess to justice ,legal protection and autonomy in
decision making particularly regarding sexual consent and bodily autonomy applying liberal feminist
principles to R V Monica . this answer will tend to critically analyze how the judgement alien with or
contradicted with these idea by referencing relevant paragraphs ,judges’ reasoning and legal precedents
discussed in the case . women question does the law reflect women experiences ,liberal feminism
question whether legal standards reflect women lift experience s. In Monica claim she argues that her
consent was vitiated by deception because she would have entered the relationship had she known the
true identity of the under cover police officer para ( 3 and 36 ) the court however ,upheld a rigid legal
standard dismissing the idea that deception about identity could negate consent .lord Burnett CJ and
Mr. Justice J para ( 18 and 65 ) reaffirmed that only two types of deception vitiate consent : the first is
the deception about the nature of the act pretending (medical procedures) are sexual acts – R V Flattery
,and deception about the perpetrator identity ( in personating as husband – R v Elbekay PARA 59,60 ) .
liberal feminist critique under women question .liberal feminism challenges male centric legal
interpretation that dismiss women perception on women’s autonomy ,the legal test use by courts fails
to recognize Monica reasoning for consent denying for her agency .Wandy William’s feminist could
argue that women’s voices are often excluded from legal definitions of what constitute coercion ands
deception consciousness raising : recognizing state gendered harm : liberal feminist argue that legal
decision must be informed by women lift experiences and that consciousness raising ( exposing
systematic biased ) is essential for legal reform . I this case Monica experience as a women deceived by
the state reflects a broader pattern of institutional abuse . the court acknowledged that undercover
officers had engaged in relationships with environmental activist but did not find it criminal conduct
( para 7-9,20 ) . the court relied on operation hered finding which condemn the practice of under cover
officer engaging in intimate relationships but did not classify as criminal ( 7-9 ,20 ) liberal feminist
critique .liberal feminist argue that women should have full acknowledge autonomy in sexual
relationship by allowing the state the ruling up hold an unjust power imbalanced . practical
reasoning ( discussed below ) should have led the court to recognize this as a clear violation of
autonomy . practical reasoning : should the law evolve to protect women consent . liberal feminism
supports practical reasoning that law should evolve reflect modern understandings of
harm ,autonomy ,and gender justice . this case shows legal judicial resistance to legal evolution in cases
of deceptive consent . the claimant relied on R v Jeetha where deception to fake police messages to
coerce sed lead to conviction of the defendant the court distinguish Jeetha by arguing that Jeetha
based on coercion while Monica based of voluntary deception ( 67 ) Assange was discussed where
failure to wear condom was consider fraud ( 37 ) the court rejected the idea that the deception about
identity is as serious and serious about contraceptive use reenforcing the narrow interpretation of
sexual fraud ( 36-37) liberal feminist advocate for legal adoptability ,meaning that court should
consider the evolving understanding of deceptional consent . the court acknowledge that legal definition
of consent have changed over time but choose not to apply these principles over here ( 49-50 ) but
prioritizing legal precedent over women lived experiences the court failed to protect to informed
consent

Liberal feminist advocacy : advocates for legal reforms to ensure that deceptive consent to recognize as
violation of autonomy . the court refuse legal protection shows the limitations of current legal
framework , the judgment states that boarding the definition of deceptive consent would criminalize
many relationships where personal deception occurs ( para 36-38 ) the court feared a slippery sloop
where lies about wealth ,job status ,or personal history could invalidate consent however ,liberal
feminist argued that deception about fundamental identity as in Monica case is different from minor
persona lies , the claimant argued that the deception about under cover status should be treated as
deception about identity similar to R v Elbekay . the court rejected this analogy insisting that
impersonating a spouse is legal different form impersonating legal activist ( 58 -60 ) the law should
distinguish between casual deception and fundamental deception that negate guanine consent .liberal
feminism call to reform to expand the definition of deceptive consent in sexual offences , the ruling
failed to align with international feminists advocacy which supports recognize deceptive consent as
coercion

The judgement recognizes the seriousness of deception as prior feminist influenced legal reform ( e.g
Jeetha para 69 assange ) however the court upheld the rigid legal standard that fail to protect women
autonomy contradicting the liberal feminist , for evolving laws its prioritize precedent over practical
situation reenforcing legal structure that fail to account the power imbalance in state sanctioned
deception . the decision limits women ability to seek justice contradicting liberal feminist efforts to
expand access to legal protection against coercion and deception . the ruling reflects the ongoing
struggle with in legal feminism to expand legal interpretation of consent to protect women rights
effectively

Radical feminist : analysis on R( Monica ) V DPP : intro : radical feminism focuses on the structural and
systematic nature of patriarchy arguing that legal systems often function to up hold male dominance
and normalize sexual exploitation applying feminist legal theory methods mainly the women
question ,consciousness raising and practical reasoning allows for the deeper critique of R Monica V DPP
,focusing on how legal system perpetuate gender power imbalances ,particularly through state
sanctioned deception .facts of R( Monica ) V DPP briefly .

Women question : how does the law marginalize women experiences . the women question in feminist
legal theory asks whether the law systematically disadvantages women by ignoring their unique
experiences especially in context involving power ,coercion and consent . --- in R ( Monica v Dpp) the
court failed to fully consider Monica experience .it applied male centric legal standard of consent
this regarding how deceptive relationships particularly those involving state authority uniquely harm
women in para 3 Monica emphasized that she would never have consented has she known bowling true
identity her consent was based on share believes and mutual trust which were fabricated . the CPS
lawyer concluded that Monica’s consent was not vitiated adhering to traditional legal categories that
only invalidate consent through deception about the nature of the act or impersonation of a spouse ( R
V Elbekay ) in para ( 18 and 49 ) .

Consciousness raising : exposing structural power and state sanctioned sexual exploitation
.consciousness raising in feminist legal theory involves sharing women experiences to reveal systematic
patterns of opression.it seeks to uncover how patriarchal power structure operate particularly within
the state and legal system .Monica’s case is emblematic of state sanction sexual violence where the
police force as an arm of the state facilitated deception leading to intimate exploitation .in para ( 7 -9
operation Herne’s report ) reveal that while sexual relationship were officially unauthorized there was’’
tacit approval ‘’ within the police force for such conduct .in para ( 8 ) TRADE Craft manual ,provided
advice on how under cover police officer could navigate intimate relationships without blowing their
cover , implicitly accepting the possibility of sexual deception . in para ( 9) the metropolitan police
apologize for the emotional harm but did not admit legal wrong doing , highlighting the gap between
acknowledgement and accountability .radical feminist would argue that this case highlights a systemic
issue / the states role in enabling sexual violence . the police , acted on the behalf of the state
weaponized intimate relationships as tolls of surveillance . consciousness raising exposes or seek to
disclose how Monica’s experience is not an isolated event but part of broaden pattern of institutional
exploitation. The courts focus on legal technicalities obscure the structural abuse of power, failing to
recognize the deep harm cause by state sanction deception . this case excellently demonstrates
/illustrates what Katherine MaC canon describes as the ‘’male states ‘’ -where legal system prioritize
state interest over women rights ,treating women bodies as instruments in law enforcement .

Third feminist method practical reasoning / reevaluate consent and coercion through a feminist lens :
practical reasoning in feminist legal theory encourage the courts to reconsider the consent through a
feminist ethical lens accounting for power dynamics ,coercion and systemic inequality .R V Monica relied
on a rigid , technical definition of consent ,failing to engage in practical reasoning that consider how
deception ,power and state authority impacts a women ability voluntary and informed consent the court
compare Monica’s case to Assange where failure to use condom despite prior agreement consider
rape ,however it dismissed the comparison arguing that deception about identity is not as significant as
the deception about the act itself ( para 36 -37 ) . in Jeetha a women was deceived into sex by fake
police messages the court distinguished monica case by deciding that jeetha involved explicit while
monica case only involve ( though decived participation ) para 67 . the court reaffirmed that only two
types of fraud can invalidate consent : deception about the nature of act and impersonation of spouse
or partner as mention above . so radical feminist would argue that the court failed to use practical
reasoning to expand the legal understanding of coerced consent ,deception by the state actor ,especially
within the context of surveillance and infiltration should be viewed as form of coercion ,as monica’s
ability to give informed consent was completely undermined .practical reasoning would have consider
the power imbalance monica was unknowingly entangled with the state agent removing her ability to
make an autonomous ,informed decision about sexual intimacy by adhering to rigid legal categories , the
court upheld patriarchal norm protecting the states interest over the victim right to bodily
autonomy .radical feminist argue that any meaningful definition of consent must include freedom for
deception and coercion ,particularly when the state exploit it power to gain sexual excess

R monica V DPP judgement reveals how the legal patriarchal power by ignoring women lift experiences
of deception and exploitation especially facilitated by state actors -------- women question : the court
dismissed monica’s experience applying male centric definition of consent that excluded her perspective
,consciousness raising : the case exposes states sanctioned sexual violence highlighting the structural
power imbalances that enable the exploitation of women in the name of law enforcement ,, practical
reasoning : the courts failure to reconsider the meaning of consent of deception and state authority
reflects its inability toa count for power dynamics in sexual relationships .