A 'Jones direction' requiring the jury to be satisfied that touching was sexually motivated is not required for indecent treatment of a child where the intentional touching of a child's genitalia by an adult inherently carries a sexual connotation rendering it capable of being indecent. The Jones direction is confined to cases where the deliberateness of the touching is not in issue but the context (such as a legitimate medical examination) creates genuine equivocation about whether the touching was indecent. Where the jury is directed that touching must be intentional and not accidental, a separate direction on accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is unnecessary and would only confuse the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.