Where a complainant was asleep at the time of sexual penetration, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or believed the complainant was asleep in order to negate the defence of reasonable belief in consent; the mere fact that the complainant was asleep is not sufficient. Equivocal responses in a pretext call that are open to multiple interpretations may not constitute an admission that the accused knew the complainant was asleep. A prosecutor's remark inviting propensity reasoning (such as 'boys will always be boys') requires a specific corrective direction, not merely a general direction that the jury need not accept counsel's arguments.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.