R v Tatola (No. 3)

In the case of R v Tatola, the defendant was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to section 61ID of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court was tasked with determining whether the offence of sexual intercourse without consent required the act to be intentional, and whether section 61I constituted an absolute offence. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the defendant, who had been convicted by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of section 61I of the Crimes Act, specifically whether it required an intention to commit the act of sexual intercourse and whether it constituted an absolute offence. The court was required to determine whether the requisite mens rea for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent included an intention to engage in the act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether section 61I of the Crimes Act was an absolute offence, or whether it required proof of a mens rea in relation to the lack of consent.

The court held that the requisite mens rea for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent did include an intention to engage in the act, and that section 61I of the Crimes Act was not an absolute offence. The court found that the ordinary meaning of the words used in section 61I of the Crimes Act did not require an intention to commit the act of sexual intercourse, and that the absence of a requirement for a mens rea in relation to the lack of consent did not render the offence absolute. The court also found that the common law offence of rape required an intention to engage in the act of sexual intercourse, and that this requirement should be applied to the statutory offence of sexual intercourse without consent.

The court ordered that the conviction of the defendant be quashed and that a verdict of not guilty be entered. The court further ordered that the matter be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales for further consideration in light of the decision of the High Court.