R v Tennyson

The case of *R v Tennyson* concerned an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Tennyson, had been convicted of one count of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of common assault. The dispute centred on the appellant's actions during an altercation where the complainant sustained injuries. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately direct the jury on the defence of self-defence. Specifically, the Court considered whether the jury had been properly instructed on the subjective and objective elements of self-defence, particularly in relation to the appellant's belief as to the necessity of using force and the reasonableness of that force in the circumstances as he perceived them. A secondary issue related to the sentencing, with the appellant arguing that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal analysed the trial judge's summing up in light of the principles established in *Zecevic v DPP (Vic)*. Mildren ACJ, with whom Kelly and Blokland JJ agreed, found that the directions given to the jury on self-defence were insufficient. His Honour held that the jury had not been adequately guided on the need to consider the appellant's subjective belief about the need for force and the objective reasonableness of that force, given his perception of the circumstances. The Court concluded that this misdirection was a substantial miscarriage of justice, requiring the conviction to be quashed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the convictions for both aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and common assault, and ordered a new trial on both counts. The appeal against sentence was therefore rendered academic.