High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that section 79 mistake of fact defence requires honest belief in affirmatively communicated consent and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain it, with awareness of severe intoxication negating good faith.

Applying Asep Ardiansyah v PP and CFE v PP, and citing R v Barton, the court held that 'good faith' under section 79 requires both honest belief and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain affirmative consent. The Accused's awareness of the Complainant's severe intoxication, nausea, vomiting, and need for physical support gave him no basis for such belief, and 'playful' pre-incident behaviour per Pram Nair v PP does not equate to consent.

Why it mattersThis elevates the threshold for mistake of fact defences in sexual assault cases, requiring defendants to demonstrate affirmative consent-seeking behaviour and negating reliance on ambiguous social cues when complainant incapacity is apparent.