A trial judge must not direct the jury that self-defence need only be considered if the jury accepts the accused's evidence as truthful and reliable; such a direction effectively reverses the onus of proof by removing from the jury's consideration the possibility that they might not accept either version of events but might nonetheless have a reasonable doubt as to whether the facts gave rise to self-defence. Where the evidence raises both physical acts and verbal threats as potential assaults, the jury must be directed on the legal meaning of 'assault' and told to separately consider each category. Directions on 'grievous bodily harm' must be consistent throughout the summing up and must cover all three limbs of the definition where relevant to the issues.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.