A trial judge's direction that the defence of accident under s 23B of the Criminal Code (WA) is unavailable unless a particular factual predicate for self-defence is established is a misdirection, because the availability of the accident defence does not depend on the factual findings relevant to self-defence. The jury is entitled to reject part of the accused's evidence (e.g., the claim of provocation) while accepting other parts (e.g., the nature of the blow struck), and the defence of accident must be left to the jury if there is evidence which, taken at its highest, could lead a reasonable jury to have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State had negatived accident. However, such a misdirection may be held immaterial where the jury's questions and the overall directions show the jury in fact considered accident in relation to the acts it found causal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.