Dal Cortivo v The Queen

The appeal concerned a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the subsequent sentence imposed. The appellant, Dal Cortivo, appealed against both the conviction and the sentence to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central contention was that the verdict reached by the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the defence of self-defence, particularly in the context of the appellant's intoxication, were misleading. Specifically, the court had to consider the proper test to apply when assessing the "belief" and "reasonable grounds" aspects of self-defence, as informed by the principles in *Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vict.)* and the relevant provisions of the *Criminal Code (ACT) 2002*. The court also had to consider whether the jury was correctly instructed on how to assess the existence of reasonable grounds for the accused's belief, applying an objective test to the perception of those grounds.

The Court of Appeal found that the directions given to the jury concerning the interplay between self-defence and intoxication were indeed misleading. The court applied the principles established in *Zecevic*, which require an objective assessment of whether the grounds for the belief were reasonable, considering the circumstances as the accused perceived them. The court concluded that the jury had not been properly instructed on this crucial aspect, leading to a verdict that was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was substituted.