The Court of Criminal Appeal refused leave to appeal against a sexual assault conviction, holding that the trial judge's oral directions on the mens rea element under s 61HE(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), while containing infelicities of expression in swapping between 'there were no reasonable grounds' and 'he had no reasonable grounds' for belief in consent, did not constitute error with legal effect when read in context and were not material in the MDP/Brawn sense. The Court extensively analysed but expressly declined to resolve whether s 61HE(3)(c) is a wholly objective test or permits consideration of subjective characteristics of the accused (such as intellectual capacity), noting the provision's drafting history, comparable interstate and UK provisions, and the common law of self-defence — leaving this question open for cases where it is squarely raised. The absence of objection by competent trial counsel was treated as a cogent indication that the impugned directions caused no practical confusion in the atmosphere of the trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.