Where the prosecution and defence cases present diametrically opposed accounts of who was the aggressor, and the jury is instructed to acquit if not satisfied the accused was the aggressor, a trial judge is not required to give a separate direction on self-defence or accident if the defence is entirely premised on the version of events that would lead to acquittal. However, the dissent highlights that where evidence of a struggle exists, self-defence may remain a viable issue even if the accused is found to have been the original aggressor, because the original aggression may have ceased.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.