In sexual assault cases where the complainant cannot remember the intercourse due to alcohol consumption, a guilty verdict may be supported by circumstantial evidence including the complainant's immediate complaint on waking, the absence of prior sexual interest, the accused's knowledge of the complainant's intoxication, and the complainant's evidence that she would never have consented. The complainant's concession that she could not 'rule anything in or out' does not preclude the jury from being satisfied of lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt where it reflects lack of memory rather than acknowledgment of possible consent.
The full text is available to signed-in members.