I'll just stay on the honest but mistaken belief in consent part, though, just for a minute, so we understand how that would work in practice.
As I understand it, the crown would obviously have to present their evidence with regard to there being an absence of consent. That's part of the case they would have to make, and it would be up to the defence to call evidence and raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief in a factual circumstance.
Is that how that would work in a trial? Can you help me understand exactly what kind of evidence the defence could call to raise that factual circumstance?