Behrends v The Queen

The parties to this appeal were Behrends (the appellant) and The Queen (the respondent). The dispute concerned the appellant's conviction for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury on the defence of self-defence in circumstances where the appellant had not explicitly raised that defence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence presented at trial was capable of supporting a finding of self-defence, thereby necessitating a direction to the jury.

The High Court held that a trial judge is obliged to direct a jury on a defence, such as self-defence, if there is any evidence, however tenuous, that is capable of supporting that defence, even if the defence has not been formally raised by the accused. In this instance, the court found that the evidence presented at trial, including the appellant's own testimony regarding his apprehension of harm, was capable of supporting a claim of self-defence. Consequently, the failure to direct the jury on this defence amounted to a misdirection in law.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.