A trial judge is not required to contrast the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard in a charge to the jury, and there is a risk that doing so may cause the jury to engage in inappropriate analysis of their mental processes. Evidence of a complainant's statements to an examining doctor is admissible to explain the basis of the doctor's expert opinion, provided the jury is directed that the statements are not evidence of the facts. A direction on mens rea need not elaborate on the requirement of intentional conduct where accident is not in issue at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.