› Self-defence – home invasion – s 15C Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – disapplication of reasonable proportionality requirement
Criminal law
› Defences
› Self-defence – s 15C(2)(c) – mental faculties substantially affected by voluntary non-therapeutic consumption of drug – whether causal connection to disproportionate force required – held not required
Statutory interpretation
› Text, context and purpose
› Implied causal requirement – contrast with s 15(2a) and s 268 CLCA – extrinsic materials – second reading speech
Criminal law
› Directions to jury
› Judicial comment on evidence – hypothesis not raised by parties – blood stain evidence – whether balanced and fair – [name withheld] v The Queen
Quick Take
1Section 15C(2)(c) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) requires the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that their mental faculties were not substantially affected by the voluntary, non-therapeutic consumption of a drug at all. Any substantial effect, whether 'positive' (eg sedation) or 'negative' (eg aggression), excludes the extended defence. There is no implied requirement that the effect contributed, or may have contributed, to the use of disproportionate force.
2In reaching that construction, the Court relied on the text, the absence of any express causal language, the contrast with the express linkage in s 15(2a), and the plausible legislative policy of avoiding difficult inquiries into how a drug affected a defendant's decision-making. Because s 15C only extends a defence rather than imposing liability, a narrower reading was not inherently unlikely.
3A trial judge may, with circumspection, put to the jury an alternative explanation for forensic evidence that neither party raised (here, blood drops deposited by the accused rather than the deceased), provided it has a proper foundation in the evidence and is presented in balanced and neutral terms. On the facts, doing so occasioned no miscarriage.
