A trial judge directing a jury on self-defence must not repeatedly invite the jury to consider whether there is a 'reasonable possibility' that the accused's version is correct in a manner that displaces the proper emphasis on the Crown's obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence. Directions must not equate the exclusion of self-defence with the rejection of the accused's evidence, as a reasonable doubt may arise from reservations about Crown evidence or other testimony even if the accused's own evidence is disbelieved. The preferred formulation is to ask whether the Crown has, to the jury's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, excluded the possibility that the accused acted in self-defence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.