R v Watt

In the case of R v Watt, the appellant was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape and one count of deprivation of liberty, while being acquitted on a count of indecent assault. The appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eight years imprisonment for the rape offences and two years imprisonment for deprivation of liberty. The appellant appealed against the conviction on several grounds, including misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge, and the admission of certain evidence.

The appellant argued that he was denied the benefit of the possibility of acquittal on the basis of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact as to consent, due to the trial judge's failure to address this issue adequately in response to questions from the jury. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the trial judge did not direct the jury on the need for the Crown to negate the operation of section 24 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The court had to determine whether the appellant was entitled to have the jury directed on the issue of honest and reasonable mistake of fact regarding the absence of consent, and whether he received a fair trial according to law. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the trial judge's directions on corroboration and the admission of lay opinion evidence as to the complainant's injuries were appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's responses to the jury's questions did not adequately address the issue of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, and that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the need for the Crown to negate the operation of section 24 of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal held that these errors amounted to misdirection and non-direction, which warranted the setting aside of the conviction and verdict, and the ordering of a new trial. The Court of Appeal also found that the admission of lay opinion evidence as to the complainant's injuries was not erroneous. The appeal against conviction was allowed, the conviction and verdict were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on counts 2 to 5.