The causation test under s 67(1)(e) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) for consent negated by intoxication requires the causal connection between the effect of intoxicating liquor and the complainant's consent to be 'sufficiently substantial to warrant the attribution of criminal responsibility'; a 'but for' test or 'decisive factor' direction is erroneous. Where the Crown case is that the complainant was 'in and out of consciousness' during intercourse, the jury must be directed on the temporal relationship between consent and periods of unconsciousness, and the two alternative routes to liability (unconsciousness and intoxication-caused consent) must be clearly distinguished in directions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.