Sections 67(4) and (5) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) do not cast an evidentiary onus on the accused to identify evidence that they said or did something to ascertain consent; the onus remains on the prosecution at all times. The question of whether an accused's belief in consent was reasonable is an open-textured question for the jury applying community standards, and a trial judge would err by attempting to list particular words or conduct that would satisfy a reasonable belief in consent. A Liberato direction adequately addresses the accused's case in this context. Trial judges should exercise caution in using extreme hypothetical examples in directions on consent, and the safer course is to remind the jury of the particular matters in the submissions of each party.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.