Elphick, W.M. v. The Queen [1986] FCA 175

Elphick, W.M. v. The Queen [1986] FCA 175

When read as a whole, the trial judge's charge did not shift the onus of proof to the accused and properly instructed the jury on consent and recklessness; no error is shown in the directions or in sentencing, so the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: William Mark Elphick; Respondent: The Queen; Complainant: Elizabeth Margaret McGhee
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Consent, Reckless Indifference, Directions to Jury
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Consent Reckless Indifference Directions to Jury

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

Parties

William Mark Elphick

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Elizabeth Margaret McGhee

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Adequacy of direction to jury as to consent
  2. 2 Adequacy of direction as to reckless indifference as to consent

Ratio Decidendi

When read as a whole, the trial judge's charge did not shift the onus of proof to the accused and properly instructed the jury on consent and recklessness; no error is shown in the directions or in sentencing, so the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • Sentences to remain as imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.