In a judge-alone trial, the District Court found the accused guilty of rape under s 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), accepting the complainant's evidence that he awoke to the accused penetrating his anus without consent. The Court rejected the defence hypothesis that the complainant's chronic methylamphetamine and cannabis use produced a drug-induced hallucination or vivid dream, finding on the evidence that the complainant did not consume methylamphetamine on the relevant day and that the defence expert conceded the type of complex multi-sensory hallucination posited was very uncommon and unsupported in published literature. A document signed by the accused was not treated as a standalone admission but was admitted as circumstantial evidence supportive of the complainant's account of a post-offence conversation in which the accused impliedly acknowledged the conduct, applying the approach in De Virgilio v The King [2026] SASCA 16.
The full text is available to signed-in members.