R v Deblasis & Deblasis

In the case of R v Deblasis & Deblasis, the appellants were convicted of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years. The conviction was based on a jury charge that did not correctly reflect the statutory provisions of the Crimes Act 1958. The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether the appellants' convictions were valid given the errors in the jury charge.

The legal issues centred on whether the jury had been properly instructed on the burden of proof in relation to the statutory defences available to the appellants. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the statutory defences, which include the requirement that the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the child was over 16, or that the accused was not more than two years older than the child, placed the burden of proof on the accused. This issue was examined in light of the Court of Appeal decision in R v Mark and Elmazovski, which held that such defences did not impose the ultimate burden of proof on the accused.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury had been incorrectly instructed on the burden of proof, which was a fundamental requirement. The court held that the statutory defences in question did not impose the ultimate burden of proof on the accused, and that this was inconsistent with the decision in R v Mark and Elmazovski. Consequently, the convictions were quashed and re-trials were ordered for the appellants.

The court's decision led to the quashing of the appellants' convictions and the ordering of re-trials, emphasising the importance of correctly instructing juries on the burden of proof in criminal cases involving statutory defences. The court's reasoning underscored the necessity for legal accuracy in jury charges to ensure the fair administration of justice.