LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Self-Defence – Burden of Proof Lies on Prosecution to Disprove
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution shows beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not done by way of self-defence; the onus is on the prosecution to disprove the accused's defence of self-defence and not on the accused to establish their plea.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The defence of self defence will only fail if the prosecution shows beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not done by way of self defence. The onus is on the prosecution to disprove the accused's defence of self defence and not on the accused to establish his plea."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principle 229 on self-defence burden. Once self-defence is raised: burden is on prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt, not on accused to prove it. Accused need only: raise the defence (through evidence making it plausible), creating reasonable possibility of self-defence. Prosecution must then: prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused didn’t act in self-defence. If prosecution fails to disprove self-defence: accused is entitled to acquittal, even if accused didn’t prove self-defence. This allocation serves: presumption of innocence (accused needn’t prove innocence/justification), prosecution’s general burden (proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt), and protecting accused from wrongful conviction when reasonable doubt exists. Self-defence is disproved by showing: accused was aggressor, force used was excessive/disproportionate (see Principles 371-372), no reasonable belief in need for defence, or accused had safe retreat opportunity (jurisdiction-dependent). The standard remains “beyond reasonable doubt”—if reasonable possibility exists that accused acted in self-defence, prosecution hasn’t met its burden. This heavy prosecution burden reflects self-defence’s importance as fundamental right.