R v Flame (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1602

R v Flame (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1602

Complete self-defence will not be left to the jury because asking the jury to assess the reasonableness of defending oneself against a wholly fantastical belief—a demon—was counter-intuitive and not within Parliament's objective intention. However, excessive self-defence will be left to the jury because the first leg remains wholly subjective and Parliament has not excluded self-induced intoxication from its ambit.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mathew Flame
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Defences to Be Left to the Jury During Trial
Outcome
Complete self-defence not left to the jury; excessive self-defence left to the jury.
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Complete Self Defence, Excessive Self Defence, Murder, Manslaughter, Mental Illness, Intoxication
Criminal Law Self Defence Complete Self Defence Excessive Self Defence Murder Manslaughter Mental Illness Intoxication

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mathew Flame

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Ruling on Defences to Be Left to the Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complete self-defence should be left to the jury
  2. 2 Whether excessive self-defence should be left to the jury
  3. 3 Interpretation of the subjective and objective aspects of self-defence under s 418 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Complete self-defence will not be left to the jury because asking the jury to assess the reasonableness of defending oneself against a wholly fantastical belief—a demon—was counter-intuitive and not within Parliament's objective intention. However, excessive self-defence will be left to the jury because the first leg remains wholly subjective and Parliament has not excluded self-induced intoxication from its ambit.

Court Disposition

Complete self-defence not left to the jury; excessive self-defence left to the jury.

Orders

  • Complete self-defence is not to be left to the jury.
  • Excessive self-defence is to be left to the jury for consideration.