Daly v The Queen

In *Daly v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Daly, against his conviction for murder. The dispute arose from the applicant's assertion that the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury adequately on the issue of self-defence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge's summing up to the jury sufficiently explained the elements of self-defence, particularly in relation to the subjective and objective components of the defence, and whether the jury had been properly instructed on the onus of proof in relation to that defence.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions were inadequate. Gleeson CJ and Gummow J explained that for a defence of self-defence to be properly put to a jury, the judge must clearly articulate that the accused must have genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence, and that this belief must have been based on reasonable grounds. The jury must be instructed that if they find the accused did not have such a belief, or that the belief was not based on reasonable grounds, then the defence fails. Crucially, the Court reiterated that while the accused bears an evidential burden to raise self-defence, the prosecution bears the ultimate onus of disproving it beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to adequately direct the jury on these matters meant that the conviction could not stand.

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