In sexual offence cases where the accused is a medical or therapeutic practitioner, the trial judge must direct the jury that it must acquit if not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the impugned acts were not performed for a medical purpose. Awareness that a complainant was or might have been mistaken about the sexual nature of an act or its medical purpose does not of itself establish awareness of absence of consent; the prosecution must still prove the accused was aware of the absence or possible absence of consent. Where uncharged acts are used to establish a sexual interest in a complainant, the jury must be directed that those acts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and a generic direction on inferential reasoning is insufficient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.