NEED A CRIMINAL LAWYER?
Section 10 for assault
Section 10 for Common Assault
Section 10 for drink driving
Section 10 for possess a prohibited drug
Section 10 for drug offence
No criminal record
How can I avoid a criminal record
Effect of criminal record
How to avoid a criminal record
You Choose
You Selected
Learn About
Criminal Defences -Self Defence
Self defence in assault offences
In any assault type offence you can raise self defence as an issue in your case. If the court accepts that you were acting in self defence, the court will dismiss the charge against you.
If you are going to defend a case relying on self defence you need to know the law relating to self defence. The law relating to self defence is found in Part 11 Division 3 of the Crimes Act 1900.
Criminal defence - self defence - the test
Section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 outlines when self defence is available.
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
- to defend himself or herself or another person, or
- to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
- to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
- to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
Raising self defence and who has to prove what
An accused only needs to raise self defence as an issue in their case. The prosecution then has to prove that the accused was not acting in self defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must show either:
1. That the accused did not genuinely believe that it was necessary to act as he or she did in his or her own defence or;
2. That what the accused did was not a reasonable response to the danger, as he or she perceived it to be.
More detailed information about self defence
The information contained below involves complex legal principles. If you do not have a good knowledge of the law you may have difficulty understanding the principles. If you need assistance, please call or email us.
Self defence: the leading case
R v Kirstain William Katarzynski
Facts
The deceased was shot by the accused three times to the torso at a Hotel in Liverpool. There was no issue that the accused committed the act which caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution conceded that there was a real possibility that when the accused shot the deceased he was acting in his own self defence.
Principles
There are two questions to be answered by the Court when self defence is raised.
1. Is there is a reasonable possibility that the accused believed that his or her conduct was necessary in order to defend himself or herself; and,2. If there is, is there also a reasonable possibility that what the accused did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he or she perceived them.
The first question is determined by a completely subjective point of view considering the personal characteristics of the accused at the time they carried out the conduct.
The second question is determined by an entirely objective assessment of the proportionality of the accused’s response to the situation the accused subjectively believed they faced.
The accused need not have reasonable grounds for their belief that it was necessary to act in the way they did in order to defend themselves as the common law required. It is sufficient if the accused genuinely holds that belief.
The jury is not assessing the response of the reasonable person but the response of the accused. In making that assessment it is obvious than some of the personal attributes of the accused will be relevant just as will be some of the surrounding physical circumstances in which the accused acted. So matters such as the age of the accused, his or her gender, or the state of his or her health may be regarded by the jury.
Intoxication is only relevant to an assessment of the belief held by the accused as to what conduct was necessary in his self defence and as to the circumstances perceived by the accused (The first question)
One matter that must be irrelevant to an assessment of the reasonableness of the accused's response (second question) is his or her state of sobriety.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this page was accurate at the time it was published. You should confirm the accuracy of this information with us or another solicitor before relying upon it. For free confirmation please contact Armstrong Legal.
It is most important that you understand that each criminal case is different. While the material in this page is intended to be relevant to the majority of cases, it may not apply to every case.
Phone: 02 9261 4555 Accredited Specialists in Criminal Law & Quality Endorsed Legal Practice - Law 9000 (based on ISO 9001).
