Stannard v Director of Public Prosecutions

The case of Stannard v Director of Public Prosecutions involves an application by the appellant for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The decision pertained to the availability of the defence of consent in a case involving the sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years, as governed by section 45 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The court was required to determine whether the appellant's argument, which posited that the statutory language permitted the defence of consent under certain conditions, was correct.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 45(4)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958, which pertains to the age difference between the offender and the victim. The appellant contended that if the offender was no more than two years older than the child, the defence of consent could be available. The court needed to decide whether the term 'more than two years older' meant that the offender could be up to two years older, or if the offender had to be strictly less than two years older than the child. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the appellant's case met the criteria for an interlocutory appeal certificate under section 295(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

The court found that the plain meaning of 'more than two years older' required the offender to be strictly less than two years older than the child. This interpretation was consistent with the statutory language and legislative intent. The court further held that the appellant had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant the grant of an interlocutory appeal certificate. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that the appellant had not shown that the appeal had a real chance of success or that there were other compelling reasons to allow the interlocutory appeal.