Director of Public Prosecutions (NT) v WJI

The Director of Public Prosecutions (NT) appealed to the High Court of Australia against the acquittal of the respondent, WJI, on a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 192(3) of the *Criminal Code* (NT). The appeal concerned points of law arising from the trial judge's directions to the jury.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to have sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent, and whether a mistaken belief in consent, to be a defence, needed to be based on reasonable grounds. These issues arose from the trial judge's directions which stated that the Crown must prove the accused intended to have intercourse without consent, and that a mistaken belief in consent did not have to be based on reasonable grounds.

The High Court considered the interpretation of the *Criminal Code* (NT), particularly ss 23 and 31, which deal with general criminal responsibility and excuses. The Court held that s 31, which provides a general excuse from criminal responsibility, applies to offences like that under s 192(3) where no specific mental element is otherwise prescribed. The Court reasoned that the "act" referred to in the general provisions on criminal responsibility should be interpreted broadly to encompass the factual elements of the offence. Consequently, the prosecution must prove the mental element of the offence, which in this context means proving the accused intended to engage in the act of sexual intercourse without consent. The Court also determined that a mistaken belief in consent, to operate as an excuse under s 31, must be based on reasonable grounds.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court ordered that both questions reserved for the Court of Criminal Appeal be answered in the negative, meaning the trial judge's directions on the intent required and the reasonableness of a mistaken belief were incorrect.