Jemielita v The Queen

The case of *Jemielita v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Jemielita, against his conviction for armed robbery. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury adequately on the issue of self-defence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the jury should have been instructed that if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant had acted in self-defence, they were bound to acquit him, even if they were not affirmatively convinced that he had acted in self-defence.

Brennan and Dawson JJ considered the principles governing the onus of proof in criminal matters, particularly in relation to defences. Their Honours affirmed that the onus rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They held that where a defence is raised, and there is evidence capable of supporting that defence, the jury must be directed that if they have a reasonable doubt about the existence of the defence, they must acquit the accused. This is because the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defence did not exist.

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