A trial counsel's rational forensic decision not to seek a jury direction on intoxication in relation to complicity — particularly where such a direction could undermine the accused's principal defence — will weigh heavily against a finding that there were 'substantial and compelling reasons' under s 16 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 for the trial judge to give the direction unrequested. The question of the precise mental element required for complicity in rape (whether the complicit party must know or believe the principal lacked reasonable belief in consent) was expressly left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.