A trial judge is not required to give a direction under s 23(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) regarding proportionality in provocation merely because self-defence (which involves proportionality) is also raised, or because the Crown's closing address contains equivocal remarks that could arguably be read as raising proportionality. The circumstances of the case must make such a direction necessary, and the failure of experienced defence counsel to seek correction is a significant indicator that no miscarriage of justice occurred.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.