REGINA v Timothy James COATES [2002] NSWCCA 441

REGINA v Timothy James COATES [2002] NSWCCA 441

Read as a whole, including the re-directions and the answer to the jury's question, the trial judge's directions accurately stated the law of self-defence and defence of another. The jury were repeatedly told that the Crown bore the onus of negativing the appellant's belief or reasonable grounds for it, and that excessive force was only a circumstance to consider, not a conclusive answer to self-defence. The sole ground of appeal was not made good.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Was Abandoned
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['self Defence' 'defence of Another' 'jury Directions' 'malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'proportionality of Force']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['self Defence' 'defence of Another' 'jury Directions' 'malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'proportionality of Force']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Was Abandoned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to self-defence or defence of another.' 'Whether directions concerning excessive or disproportionate force wrongly suggested that objectively disproportionate force necessarily negatived self-defence.' "Whether the judge's further directions in response to the jury's question correctly stated the law and the Crown's onus."]

Ratio Decidendi

Read as a whole, including the re-directions and the answer to the jury's question, the trial judge's directions accurately stated the law of self-defence and defence of another. The jury were repeatedly told that the Crown bore the onus of negativing the appellant's belief or reasonable grounds for it, and that excessive force was only a circumstance to consider, not a conclusive answer to self-defence. The sole ground of appeal was not made good.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']