A trial judge's direction on the s 24 defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief is adequate where it directs the jury to assess the honesty of the accused's belief by reference to the accused's 'state of mind' on 'all the evidence', even without expressly using the word 'subjective' or specifically directing that intoxication is relevant to the honesty element, provided the direction as a whole clearly distinguishes the subjective honesty inquiry from the objective reasonableness inquiry.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.