The case illustrates the application of the recklessness standard for sexual intercourse without consent under s 54 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), including that a previous refusal of consent and the absence of express consent immediately prior to intercourse may give rise to a possibility of non-consent in the accused's mind sufficient to establish recklessness. Strong complaint evidence from multiple sources made shortly after the incident was treated as very significant. A complainant's post-incident discreditable conduct (including fabrication of evidence and false statements to third parties) was held not to be particularly damaging to credibility where it could be explained by context.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.