CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25

CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25

Section 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) does not create an absolute liability offence. Where an evidentiary foundation exists, an accused who honestly and reasonably believed the complainant was 16 or older should not be criminally responsible; it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused lacked such a belief. However, in this case, no sufficient evidentiary foundation was established at trial to enliven this issue, thus no miscarriage of justice resulted from erroneous jury directions, and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: CTM; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact, Onus of Proof, Standard of Proof, Statutory Construction, Mens Rea, Absolute Liability, Jury Directions, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact Onus of Proof Standard of Proof Statutory Construction Mens Rea Absolute Liability +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTM

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a ground of exculpation to an offence under s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether s 66C(3) creates an absolute liability offence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the onus and standard of proof for honest and reasonable mistake

Ratio Decidendi

Section 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) does not create an absolute liability offence. Where an evidentiary foundation exists, an accused who honestly and reasonably believed the complainant was 16 or older should not be criminally responsible; it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused lacked such a belief. However, in this case, no sufficient evidentiary foundation was established at trial to enliven this issue, thus no miscarriage of justice resulted from erroneous jury directions, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.