The case confirms that where a complainant's protests about sexual activity were directed to a third party rather than the alleged offender, the jury is entitled to find that the offender knew or had no reasonable grounds for believing the complainant consented, provided the evidence as a whole supports that conclusion. The majority's approach illustrates that inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence and post-event behaviour are matters for the jury to weigh, and that an appellate court should give full weight to the jury's advantage in assessing credibility in sexual assault cases. The dissent illustrates the limits of the jury advantage where the doubt arises from objective features of the evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.