113 The judge told the jury not to think about common enterprise and to concentrate on what the Crown had proved that the appellant did. The judge pointed out that there was no dispute that the appellant was present. Further, he denied any part in either offence. The judge told the jury:
"But what the Crown has to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt is that she was detained by the accused and it was done with an intent to hold her for an advantage to himself.
Now to detain a person means to prevent that person leaving should they wish to do so. It would be sufficient that the person was detained for only a very short time. Well in this case it would appear that she was detained for some hours.
The Crown says here that the detention here was constituted by the acts of the accused, that is, at least on one occasion - if you accept the evidence of the complainant in the statement - that he dragged her into the house with the other man, that he was a part of that, and earlier she had said that he had dragged her around the house with a rope around her neck and had committed a number of assaults upon her himself.
Now the Crown has to prove that the accused did actually do things which would amount to preventing that person from leaving. The Crown also relies upon the fact that he took her into his room and she stayed there, according to the Crown, the way they put it, or that she had to ask permission to go to the toilet and then he went and accompanied her and then back to the bedroom again. It was on the last occasion which the complainant said that she went again and this time the accused must have been asleep and she then made her escape.
If you are not satisfied that the accused did actually detain her himself, you must acquit him, but if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she was detained by the accused, you have to be satisfied that he intended to hold her for an advantage to himself.
Now it is sufficient, as far as advantage is concerned, if the person who had the intention of achieving some advantage to himself by detaining that person. The advantage sought need not be financial. It is sufficient if it is the nature of a psychological gratification, and my understanding of the way the Crown has put this is that there was a deliberate course of conduct, which the Crown said the only inference which you could draw was to humiliate and debase that woman.
That is my understanding of the way the Crown puts its case, and if the Crown has proved that beyond reasonable doubt, well then that would be sufficient to say that he had the intention of holding her for his advantage.
Members of the jury, the question then becomes a question of intent. The Crown must prove that he intended that beyond reasonable doubt, and in this particular case, there was evidence of alcohol being consumed not only by the complainant - I refer to the victim as the complainant - but by the accused himself.
The accused has given evidence that he, on that morning, had gone to the TAB and placed some bets, then he went to the Griffith Hotel where he drank, I think he said, about three or four schooners. He then said he purchased - I would call it a carton of stubbies which I understand contains twenty-four bottles, I think if we accept that, and he said that he consumed approximately half - about half himself, so that would be twelve stubbies over a period of time on top of the three or four drinks that he had at that particular time.
Well members of the jury, one of the matters that you will have to consider on the question of the intention to hold this lady for his advantage is the effect upon the accused of the alcohol which he said he has consumed. As a matter of law, evidence of self-induced intoxication by drink is relevant in determining whether the accused had formed the requisite intent to detain her for his advantage.
It is for the Crown to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to detain her for his advantage, notwithstanding the evidence relating to the ingestion by the accused of the alcohol. If the Crown has failed to satisfy you, then the accused must be acquitted of that particular charge.
In certain circumstances, an intoxicated man may act without forming any intention at all. On the other hand, a man may be considerably affected by alcohol and yet still be able to act intentionally. The fact that a man's judgment was affected so that he acts in a different way from the way he would normally act if he were sober does not necessarily mean that he was not acting intentionally. For example, if a man took a gun from his pocket and pointed it at a bank teller and demanded money, the fact that he was intoxicated at the time may not cause you to doubt that he was acting intentionally.
But here of course, on the whole of the evidence, you will consider all the evidence on the point about what the accused said of the ingestion of alcohol, and there was certainly a number of stubbies which were found in the Sulo bin. There is the evidence of the accused as to how much he drank. There is evidence that he drank earlier in the day.
So members of the jury, that is a matter which the Crown has to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt, that he was acting intentionally, notwithstanding the ingestion of the alcohol."