Where the complainant's evidence (accepted by the jury) describes physical force and persistent verbal refusal, there is no evidential basis for an honest and reasonable mistake of fact direction under s 24(1) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), even where surrounding circumstances include consensual initial contact, drug intoxication, and ambiguous post-incident conduct. The s 24 defence in sexual offence cases is distinguishable from intoxication cases (R v SAX, R v Soloman) where the complainant's incapacity may not have been apparent to the defendant. A Palmer direction is not required where the defence case itself asserts the complainant had a motive to fabricate.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.