A belief in consent is incompatible with awareness that the complainant might not be consenting; if the jury accepts the accused believed the complainant was consenting, the Crown necessarily fails to establish the awareness element of rape. There is no legal requirement that a person must 'satisfy themselves' that the other person is consenting before sexual intercourse; consent may be communicated by conduct, and a belief in consent based on assumption is sufficient to avail the accused if the Crown cannot exclude it beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of a motive to lie by a complainant is neutral and cannot be used as a factor supporting the prosecution case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.