In Victoria, a 'first occasion' particular is sufficient to avoid latent duplicity if the complainant can give evidence of the first occasion, even without additional distinguishing features; the contention that further distinguishing features are always required is wrong in principle. However, if the 'first occasion' is merely notional (the complainant has no recollection of it), the Crown will have failed to distinguish the charged act from uncharged acts. The offence of procurement under s 57 of the Crimes Act 1958 does not require proof that the accused knew his threats had caused the complainant to participate; the mens rea is the intention that threats or intimidation would bring about the act of sexual penetration.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.