Twelve Australians had spent about a week together poring over endless hours of evidence in a Sydney court when a note was sent to the judge.
On it was a question that offered a rare insight into how the jury – whose deliberations remain private under law – was weighing the credibility of a woman’s claim she had been raped, and whether a man was innocent or guilty of the crime. It asked: if a person accusing someone of rape voluntarily takes drugs or drinks alcohol, are they then accountable for the actions of the accused?
The judge, who had overseen the trial, told the jury that it cannot be assumed that someone being intoxicated means they consented to sex. Nor was that ever suggested during the trial.
