R v Stevens (No 2)

The case of R v Stevens (No 2) involved the appellant, Stevens, appealing against a conviction for sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether Stevens' state of mind, described by the trial judge as "recklessness" and "non-advertent recklessness," was sufficient to establish the necessary intent for the offence under the Crimes Act.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the statutory definition of recklessness and non-advertent recklessness as it pertained to the crime of sexual intercourse without consent. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether these terms required an awareness of the risk of non-consent, or if indifference to the complainant's consent could suffice. The court had to consider whether Stevens' indifference, amounting to a "willy-nilly" approach, constituted the requisite state of mind for the offence.

The High Court held that recklessness in the context of this offence required an awareness of the risk of non-consent, and mere indifference to whether consent was given did not meet this threshold. The court emphasised that recklessness must involve a conscious disregard of the risk that the complainant did not consent. The trial judge's findings did not establish the requisite state of mind as they were based on indifference rather than conscious disregard. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and a verdict of acquittal was entered.