Evidence of an accused's intellectual impairment is relevant to the assessment of reasonableness of mistake under s 24(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld), per the majority (Holmes J and Williams JA), because the section directs attention to whether the accused's belief was held on reasonable grounds rather than what a hypothetical reasonable person would have believed. However, McMurdo P's dissent on this point means the issue is not fully settled. The definition of 'intellectually impaired person' in s 229F must not be conflated with lack of cognitive capacity to consent under s 348(1) in jury directions. The insanity defence under s 27 is not available where the accused knew in the abstract that the acts were wrong but was merely inhibited in detecting the complainant's condition.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 29 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 29 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.