Denys Roberts CJ:

The defendant, Abdullah bin Haji Yakub faces three charges in the following terms:

1st charge:

That you on the night of 7 December 1989, in Room No. 13, Sergeant's Mess at Penanjong Camp in Tutong, Negara Brunei Darusalam, committed rape on X, a woman under 14 years of age, without her consent, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376(2) the Penal Code.

2nd charge:

That you on the night of the 7 December 1989 in Room No. 13, Sergeant's Mess at Penanjong Camp in Tutong, Negara Brunei Darussalam, committed rape on X a woman under 14 years of age, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 376(1) of the Penal Code.

3rd charge:

That you on the night of 7 December 1989 in Room No. 13, Sergeant's Mess at Penanjong Camp in Tutong, Negara Brunei Darussalam, did have carnal knowledge of a girl namely, X, under the age of 16 years, and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under s. 2 of the Unlawful Carnal Knowledge Act, Cap. 29.

The defendant pleaded not guilty before me to all three charges.

I remind myself that in a criminal prosecution the burden lies on the prosecution to establish, so that I am sure, every element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden lies on the prosecution throughout the trial and does not change, with the exception of the special defence that is provided for the defendant under s. 3 of the Unlawful Carnal Knowledge Act. Under this section, the burden lies on the defendant to establish, on the balance of the probabilities, which is a lesser burden than that which lies on the prosecution, that the accused had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over 16 years of age.

I also note that a conviction on one of the charges does not mean that I must reach the same conclusion on all of them. It is necessary to consider separately the evidence on each charge to see if the prosecution has established all the elements of each offence.

Section 375 of the Penal Code defines rape as being committed when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman in the circumstances falling within any of the five description which are set out in the section. These include intercourse:

(a) against her will;

(b) without her consent;

(c) with her consent when this is obtained by putting her in fear of death or hurt; or

(e) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age.

I remind myself of a number of propositions of law, which apply to the various issues which arise in the course of this trial.

Firstly, in a charge of rape or attempted rape, some corroboration of the evidence of the complainant is usually required. Secondly, having warned myself that it is dangerous to act on the evidence of the complainant alone, I may act on her evidence by itself if I find it so credible that I am sure of the guilt of the defendant and I am prepared to act upon the complainant's evidence.

Thirdly, complaints which are made by a victim in a sexual case, although they do not amount in English Law to corroboration of her evidence but only as to consistency of her conduct, can in Brunei amount to such corroboration. I shall apply the same principles to the charge of unlawful carnal knowledge. In relation to a woman, carnal knowledge includes sexual intercourse, though it is wider than that.

Section 375 of the Penal Code sets out the acts which can constitute rape. It is sufficient to constitute rape, according to the explanation which is attached to that section, if there has been a penetration of the woman.

This will mean that if there is a penetration of the vagina by the male organ, the offence is complete, whether or not this is followed by ejaculation inside or outside the woman.

It is not necessary for me to recite in any great detail at this stage the facts of the case. It is I think, sufficient to say that, at about 5.30 p.m., on the evening of 7 December 1989, the victim, whom I will call Miss X, was dropped at Seria town by her step mother, with whom