Exercise 007 | Law

Exercise 007

Self-Defence: Regina v PRFN [2000] NSWCCA 230 (21 June 2000)

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. In which court was the case heard? Where on the court hierarchy does this court sit?
  3. What sort of case was it - civil, criminal, first instance, appellate?
  4. What was/were the name/s of the judge/s?
  5. Who was counsel for the appellant?
  6. What were the material facts of the case?
  7. What were the grounds of appeal?
  8. What are the catchwords? What authority do they have?
  9. What did the appellant seek?
  10. What was the outcome?
  11. Explain the following terms (using your legal dictionary):
    1. self-defence
    2. provocation
    3. manslaughter
    4. diminished responsibility

More difficult questions

  1. What was the decision of the judge at the previous hearing (the 'trial judge')?
  2. On what did the trial judge base his decision on the matter of conviction?
  3. What was the part of the trial judge's decision that was being questioned?
  4. What did the trial judge mean in saying that the Crown 'bore the onus of excluding self-defence beyond reasonable doubt'?

Complex questions

  1. What was the trial judge's approach to the question of self-defence?
    1. What were the issues he considered?
    2. What cases did he use to this end?
  2. What did the trial judge decide in relation to the question of the imminence of the threat?
  3. What findings did the judge (in the present case) make regarding the following issues in relation to the question of sentence:
    1. revenge
    2. provocation
    3. loss of self-control
    4. self-defence
    5. rehabilitation
  4. What was the trial judge's opinion as to the appropriate requirements of self-defence?
    1. Which approach to this issue did he prefer, Palmer v The Queen or Regina v Howe?
    2. What was his preferred position on the issue of excessive force?
  5. What were the issues that determined that the outcome of the previous case was manslaughter rather than murder?
  6. What are the possible way/s in which it is possible to overturn the previous decision regarding sentence?
  7. Do you agree with Giles JA's reasoning and decision?
  8. Compare the state of the law in respect of self-defence in The Queen v. Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448 and this case.