A Green activist tricked into a sexual relationship with an undercover officer would 'never ever ever' consented to sex with him if she knew he was police, a court heard.

Jim Boyling, who infiltrated left-wing groups for five years, formed a relationship with the campaigner, known only as Monica, while spying for the Met Police.

He was dismissed from the force for gross misconduct in May of this year, the first police spy to be dismissed for sexual misconduct.

Scroll down for video

Jim Boyling, who infiltrated left-wing groups for five years, formed a relationship with the campaigner, known only as Monica, while spying for the Met Police

Monica launched legal action against him but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

Now she has become the first person to launch a High Court challenge against the director of public prosecutions and its decision.

Monica claims the DPP was wrong to conclude Boyling's deception did not negate consent.

She is also claiming the DPP failed to address her Victim' Right to Review (VRR) submissions, in determining whether he knew exactly what he was doing and 'wilfully' sought out a sexual relationship.

Their relationship started in April 1997 and lasted six months.

Monica was led to believe Boyling shared her political views and aspirations.

He told her that he was called Jim Sutton and that the flat he invited her to stay at was his genuine home.

Monica was the one to break up with Boyling, who became upset and asked her to reconsider.

Within a month or two, however, he started a new relationship, which would last for 18 months with another activist.

Phillippa Kaufmann, representing Monica at the Royal Court's of Justice, said her client would never have consented to a relationship with a police officer.

She said: 'She hated the police when she was in the movement. She said in her police interview, 'it's sexual abuse on some level, whatever you dress it up as, it's sexual abuse'.

'There's one thing I want to make very clear. I would never have consented to having a relationship with a police officer, I would never ever ever have done that.

'I feel very abused by the sexual contact and sexual intimacy I had with him.'

As 'Jim the Van', he drove for Reclaim the Streets, taking protesters around the country and would become a key player in the protest movement run by anarchists and anti-capitalists.

Ms Kaufmann said that women's view of consent and sexual relationships can be very different to men's.

She said: 'Most women don't decide to have a sexual encounter with someone simple on the basis of their appearance.

'This relationship evolved into a sexual relationship over time.'

She said the 'getting to know you' period was 'critical' in developing a sexual desire.

Ms Kaufmann continued: 'She developed a desire for the characteristics of Jim Sutton precisely because of his characteristics.

'And precisely because he was deceiving her to the true person he was. She was a political activist in an environmental movement.

'He was a police officer that was infiltrating her movement and spying upon her.

'It was critical to the free choice of this complainant, with her life and her beliefs, that she knew that the person she was having sex with's job was to spy on her and the complainant's involvement in the movement, and on her friends and fellow travellers alike.

'The fact that she embarked on this relationship with an individual whose actions were supported by the State was not insignificant.

'The deception was so much more real as it was so carefully crafted. There was no way through to see the real Jim Boyling.

'She didn't make her choice in the basis that that was Jim Boyling's body.'

She said: 'That is not the way women work and if the law is going to support women's sexual autonomy, then it needs to recognise that there are other factors that are critical when giving consent.

'It doesn't respect women's sexual autonomy and how women operate. It's a slow burn that is critical to how women make their choices.'

Gareth Patterson QC, acting for the Department of Public Prosecution said: 'The deception was something he was required to do in the public interest.'

His statement was met with incredulous grunts from the public gallery.

Mr Justice Day interjected: 'It was in the public interest to infiltrate and spy and collect intelligence. A red line was clearly crossed.'

Mr Patterson replied : 'No one seeks to argue that the line wasn't crossed, the issue is whether it was rape.'