Following R v Getachew, jury directions that it is open to find the accused believed the complainant was consenting but was still aware she might not be consenting are not erroneous, reversing the position under R v Worsnop. However, it is desirable that juries be directed that beliefs vary in nature and extent, and that the prosecution must establish the accused did not have a belief in consent that creates a reasonable doubt as to awareness. Where both prosecution and defence agree to a mode of presenting evidence based on a mutual mistake as to the accuracy of a translation, the forensic choice does not bar appellate review of the resulting miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.