The appellants were convicted of rape and indecent assault after engaging in sexual acts with a prostitute.
At trial, they argued that the complainant consented or, alternatively, that they held an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.
The trial judge left the defence of mistake of fact to the jury but instructed them that the belief must be supported by reasonable grounds.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the defence was properly left to the jury due to an 'air of reality' in the evidence, the trial judge erred in law by requiring reasonable grounds for the honest belief.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
