Wakeley v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Wakeley, against his conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the applicant's assertion that he had acted in self-defence when he fatally stabbed the victim during an altercation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by directing the jury that the onus was on the applicant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had acted in self-defence. This question required the Court to consider the proper application of the defence of self-defence in criminal law, particularly in relation to the burden of proof.

The High Court, by majority, held that the trial judge's direction was erroneous. The Court affirmed the principle that in Australian criminal law, the prosecution bears the onus of disproving self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt once evidence has been adduced suggesting the possibility of self-defence. The Court reasoned that the defence of self-defence is not an affirmative defence in the same way as, for example, insanity, and therefore does not require the accused to prove its elements on the balance of probabilities. The onus remains with the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did not act in self-defence.

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