Where a complainant gives direct evidence of the commission of all acts necessary to sustain a conviction, a finding that the accused was not impotent is not an indispensable intermediate fact that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt; the question is whether the jury accepts the complainant's direct evidence. A jury direction that the accused's evidence of sexual dysfunction should be 'put aside' if the jury merely has a doubt about it (as opposed to positively disbelieving it) is erroneous, as it precludes the jury from taking into account evidence that may give rise to a reasonable doubt. The majority and dissent divided on whether correct general Liberato directions elsewhere in the summing up could cure such a specific misdirection.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.