The term 'extraordinary emergency' in s 10.3 of the Criminal Code (Cth) does not necessarily connote circumstances requiring immediate action; an extraordinary emergency may involve a situation of extreme gravity and abnormal danger that persists over time. Trial judges directing juries on the s 10.3 defence must ensure that the burden and standard of proof are adequately linked to each element of the defence, making clear that the Crown bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not hold the requisite beliefs, rather than requiring the accused to establish those beliefs as a matter of fact. Where the emergency relied upon is extraordinary rather than sudden, a trial judge may need to explain the ambit of 'emergency' beyond its commonly understood meaning of urgency.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.