DPP v Myers (No 3)

[2025] ACTSC 514

Supreme Court of the ACT21 November 2025

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Jurisdiction, practice and procedure
3. › Special hearing due to unfitness to plead
4. › Judge alone trial
5. › Whether proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused engaged in conduct required for offence charged
6. › Only physical elements required to be proved
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 316, 317, 318, 319
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Self-defence
4. › Whether self-defence raised on the evidence
5. › Whether disproved beyond reasonable doubt
6. › Accused's response disproportionate to any perceived threat
7. › Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 42
1. Criminal Law
2. › Offences against the person
3. › Grievous bodily harm
4. › Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm
5. › Meaning of grievous bodily harm
6. › Permanent or serious disfiguring
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 19, Dictionary
1. Criminal Law
2. › Jurisdiction, practice and procedure
3. › Special hearing
4. › Classification of offence as serious offence
5. › Whether factual circumstances involved actual or threatened violence and substantial risk of harm
6. › Consequences for sentencing orders
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 300(1), 318, 319

Quick Take

In a special hearing under s 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), only the physical elements of the offence (including voluntariness) need be proved beyond reasonable doubt; the prosecution is not required to prove intention or other mental elements. Self-defence must still be disproved beyond reasonable doubt if raised on the evidence. The question whether the statutory (s 42 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)) or common law (Zecevic) test for self-defence applies to Crimes Act offences was left open.