R v Karsten PETERSEN [2008] NSWDC 9

R v Karsten PETERSEN [2008] NSWDC 9

Because offences of sexual intercourse without consent are crimes of basic intent, and the same necessarily follows for indecent assault, s 428D of the Crimes Act prevents the jury from taking self-induced intoxication into account when deciding whether the accused had the relevant mens rea, including knowledge or recklessness as to consent. The defence opening therefore required correction and the jury had to be directed to assess the accused as if he were perfectly sober.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Judgment / Jury Trial Ruling on Directions Concerning Intoxication Evidence
Outcome
The Court held that evidence of the accused's self-induced intoxication could not be taken into account on the issues of knowledge or recklessness as to consent, and that the jury would be directed accordingly.
Legal Topics
['self Induced Intoxication' 'specific Intent and General Intent' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'recklessness' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sexual Offences'] ['self Induced Intoxication' 'specific Intent and General Intent' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'recklessness' 'jury Directions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Judgment / Jury Trial Ruling on Directions Concerning Intoxication Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, when considering whether the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the complainant was consenting, the jury should be directed to ignore evidence of the accused's intoxication." 'Whether sexual intercourse without consent and indecent assault are offences of specific intent or general/basic intent for the purposes of Part 11A of the Crimes Act.' 'Whether the accused could rely on self-induced intoxication as explaining a mistaken belief that the complainant was awake and receptive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because offences of sexual intercourse without consent are crimes of basic intent, and the same necessarily follows for indecent assault, s 428D of the Crimes Act prevents the jury from taking self-induced intoxication into account when deciding whether the accused had the relevant mens rea, including knowledge or recklessness as to consent. The defence opening therefore required correction and the jury had to be directed to assess the accused as if he were perfectly sober.

Court Disposition

The Court held that evidence of the accused's self-induced intoxication could not be taken into account on the issues of knowledge or recklessness as to consent, and that the jury would be directed accordingly.

Orders

  • ["Mr Dailly SC's opening required correction by the judge." "The jury must be directed that it cannot take evidence of the accused's intoxication into account and must proceed on the basis that the accused was perfectly sober."]