MAW v The Queen

The case of *MAW v The Queen* was heard by Kirby, Heydon, and Kiefel JJ of the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned an appeal against a conviction for a sexual offence. The appellant, MAW, had been convicted in the District Court of New South Wales and subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which dismissed his appeal. MAW then sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury adequately on the issue of consent, particularly in circumstances where the complainant's evidence was equivocal. Specifically, the court considered whether the jury should have been instructed that the prosecution bore the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent, and that this onus extended to any ambiguity or uncertainty in the complainant's evidence regarding consent.

The High Court, in dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, held that the trial judge's directions on consent were sufficient. Their Honours reasoned that the jury had been properly instructed on the elements of the offence and the prosecution's burden of proof. The directions, when read as a whole, conveyed to the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual act. The court found no error in the judge's approach to the complainant's evidence, which, while containing some equivocation, was ultimately put to the jury in a manner that correctly placed the onus on the prosecution to prove lack of consent.

The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.