According to s9 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990, what does lack of resistance indicate?

The provision in section 9 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 states that the absence of resistance from a victim does not automatically equate to consent. This law recognizes that victims of rape may not physically resist for a variety of reasons, which could include fear, shock, or a specific psychological response to trauma. Therefore, it emphasizes that a lack of resistance may or may not imply consent and should not be interpreted as a definitive indication that consent was given.

This understanding is crucial in the context of rape and sexual assault cases, as it upholds the principle that consent must be informed and active rather than inferred from a victim's behavior. The legal system aims to prevent misconceptions surrounding consent that could disadvantage victims when their actions are misinterpreted in court. Thus, the correct interpretation of this section is that while lack of resistance may be a factor in assessing the situation, it does not conclusively mean that consent was present.