When directing a jury on the defence of mistake of fact under s 24 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), the trial judge must clearly distinguish between the two elements of the defence: intoxication is relevant to whether the accused honestly held a mistaken belief as to consent, but is irrelevant to whether that belief was held on reasonable grounds. A direction that conflates these two inquiries or suggests intoxication is irrelevant to both will give rise to a miscarriage of justice where the defence is squarely raised on the evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.