Quote:
Originally Posted by J epworth kendal
It is open for him to claim that he honestly but mistakenly believed she was consenting, however, this cannot be induced by alcohol because our criminal code does not allow self-induced states to be defences. So if the court accepts that he honestly believed she was consenting (this need not be reaonable belief but an honest belief) then he would be aquitted, but there has to be other evidence, not his intoxicated state that led him to believe she was consenting.
The fact that she was drunk and possibly showing some kinds of consent would still probably fail because if she is that drunk and he knows it then he is either being reckless or wilfully blind by continuing his actions
(Source, my girlfriend who just wrote her Criminal Law final 2 days ago)
|
Add onto my point:
Also, major point to remember is it is crown v. accused and not complainant v. accused, the complainant is essentially a witness, she does not have to prove anything herself.
Also the actus reus/ mens rea are important to distinguish. It is pretty much impossible for an accused to deny actus reus (The actus reus of Sexual assult is that there was touching of a sexual nature and that there was no consent.... this is essentially proved by simply asking the complainant if she was willing...) Unless they actually didn't do anything, like no touching or they don't believe the complainant (like the court doesn't believe her)