In rape trials where consent is the central issue, a trial judge may not prevent cross-examination on whether the complainant 'allowed' the sexual intercourse to occur, as this is a factor relevant and material to the complainant's state of mind and whether consent was given under s 348 of the Criminal Code (Qld). While submission is not the same as consent, the question of whether a complainant allowed or submitted to intercourse remains a permissible line of cross-examination. A summing up that advances explanations for a complainant's prior inconsistent statement not put by the prosecution, and that warns the jury to 'be careful' about the defence's reliance on such a statement, may lack balance and occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.