What is relevant evidence to support a finding of intent in a sexual assault case?

If the complainant suffered bodily harm, that is relevant evidence from which it may be inferred that the accused administered the substance with intent thereby to cause bodily harm. On the other hand, if the complainant did not suffer bodily harm, although that is also evidence that must be considered in determining whether the necessary intent may be inferred from the evidence as a whole, that finding by itself does not constitute an answer to the charge. If the substance administered was a noxious substance in the sense that it was capable in the normal course of events of causing bodily harm, the intent necessary to support a conviction may be inferred even though bodily harm does not result. In this regard Cockburn, C.J. stated in Regina v. Henna (supra) at p.549; “It would be very different if the thing administered, as regards either its character or degree, were capable of doing mischief. But because it happens to fail in a particular instance, from any collateral or unforeseen cause, owing, may be, to the vigour of the constitution of the person to whom it is administered, or some cause of that description, if it was capable of doing mischief at all it would be within the statute.”