Where the Crown case is that touching was deliberate and the touching is an integral part of the physical process being administered (here, massage), the touching is the 'act' itself and not an 'event' (consequence of an act) within s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and no accident direction is required. A complainant's lay use of the word 'accident' does not engage s 23(1)(b). A direction on motive in the context of indecency (per R v Jones) is only required where there is evidence capable of casting doubt on the sexual quality of the touching; deliberate touching of the vagina during massage has no possible legitimate justification and does not require such a direction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.