Stewart v The Queen

In *Stewart v The Queen*, the appellant, Stewart, was convicted of a number of offences, including aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Crown alleged that Stewart, along with two other individuals, had robbed a service station and assaulted the attendant. Stewart appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately direct the jury on the issue of self-defence in relation to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Stewart contended that the jury should have been instructed that if they found he had acted in self-defence, even if that defence was not ultimately successful, it could still be relevant to negating the *mens rea* (guilty mind) for the aggravated robbery charge, specifically concerning the element of intent to steal.

Kelly J considered the principles of self-defence as codified in the *Criminal Code Act 1924* (Tas). His Honour noted that self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of assault. However, the Court found that the trial judge's directions, while perhaps not perfectly articulated, had adequately conveyed to the jury that if they accepted Stewart acted in self-defence, they should acquit him of the assault charge. Crucially, Kelly J held that the defence of self-defence, as it applied to the assault, did not operate to negate the *mens rea* for the aggravated robbery. The intent to steal was a separate and distinct element of the robbery offence, and the appellant's actions in self-defence during the course of the robbery did not, in themselves, demonstrate an absence of that intent.

The appeal was dismissed.