Likiardopoulos v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Likiardopoulos, against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The applicant had sought to argue that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury regarding the issue of self-defence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on the elements of self-defence, specifically concerning the requirement that the force used must not be "excessive", were adequate and properly explained. The applicant contended that the jury may have been misled into believing that any force exceeding what was strictly necessary for self-preservation would automatically constitute excessive force, thereby negating a valid defence.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the trial judge's directions on excessive force were insufficient. Their Honours explained that the concept of excessive force in self-defence does not require a precise calibration of the force used against the threat faced. Instead, the jury must consider whether the force used was more than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances as the accused perceived them. The legal principle applied was that a person is permitted to use such force as they honestly and reasonably believe to be necessary to defend themselves, even if that belief turns out to be mistaken, provided the force used is not disproportionate to the perceived threat.

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