Digital rape involving fist penetration with extra brutality and premeditation may be sentenced equivalently to penile rape, notwithstanding the general observation in R v Colless that digital rape may be somewhat less grave. A trial judge's questioning of an accused to clarify evidence that appears inconsistent with other evidence does not constitute impermissible cross-examination where the questions are directed to elucidating an area left uncertain, even where the questions touch on the central issue of injuries and consent. A complainant's text message stating sexual activity was 'consented' does not necessarily render a rape verdict unreasonable where the jury could accept the complainant's explanation that she did not understand the legal significance of withdrawing consent.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.