Expressing the self-defence standard of proof in jury directions as 'is there a reasonable possibility' is a permissible restatement of the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, not an impermissible explanation of it, provided the conventional standard is consistently referenced throughout the summing up and the impugned formulation is not repeated for every element of the offence. The case is distinguishable from Hadchiti v R where the 'reasonable possibility' terminology pervaded the entire written direction. The proviso applies where there is no or insufficient evidence to support self-defence, even if the direction was wrong.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.