R v Zhang [2007]
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: The complainant (C), a former employee of the defendant (D), alleged that D raped her in a hotel room while she was intoxicated and in and out of consciousness. To establish the offence of rape, the prosecution had to prove three elements:
Sexual intercourse occurred.
C did not consent.
D did not reasonably believe that C had consented.
Under Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, if it is established that C was asleep or unconscious and D knew this, C would be presumed not to have consented unless D proved otherwise. Additionally, D would be presumed not to have reasonably believed that C consented unless he proved otherwise.
D was convicted of rape in the lower court and appealed, arguing that the judge misdirected the jury by treating the evidential presumption in Section 75 as conclusive.
Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding D's conviction for rape.
Key Judicial Statements: Hallet LJ, delivering the judgment, emphasised that the jury's task was to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that:
C did not consent.
D did not reasonably believe C had consented.
The court found that the judge's directions did not elevate the presumption in Section 75 to a conclusive presumption. Hallet LJ stated, “In our view the jury could have been in no doubt whatsoever what they had to decide, namely had the prosecution proved so that they were sure that the complainant did not consent and the defendant did not reasonably believe that she had consent?” Additionally, Hallet LJ advised trial judges to consult with counsel when faced with legal complexities to ensure proper guidance.