Where a defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief as to consent under s 24 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) arises on the evidence, the trial judge must give specific directions identifying the particular matters the jury must consider, including the accused's state of mind and what was said and done at relevant times bearing on the existence or non-existence of that state of mind. A general direction that the prosecution must negative the defence, without identifying the relevant evidence and issues, is inadequate. A jury's erroneous conviction on one count where no evidence was given does not necessarily constitute a 'poisoned well' vitiating other verdicts, particularly where the error is explicable by the directions given.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.