Under the self-defence principle in Zecevic v DPP, what must the accused prove?

• A. They had reasonable grounds to believe their life was threatened and force used was proportionate and reasonable.
• B. They acted in self-defence solely to protect property.
• C. They believed a threat existed but used excessive force.
• D. They had no option but to act to prevent a greater harm.

Answer: (A)

In Zecevic v DPP, the self-defence defence hinges on two important ideas. First, the accused must honestly believe there is an imminent threat to life or bodily harm. That belief doesn’t have to be perfectly accurate, but it must be grounded on reasonable grounds in the circumstances as the accused perceived them. Second, the force used in response must be proportionate to that threat; it should be a reasonable and necessary amount to defend against the danger, not excessive.

So the key idea is that the accused must show they had reasonable grounds to believe their life was at risk, and the force they used was a reasonable and proportionate response to that threat. This is not about protecting property alone, and it does not require proving there was literally no alternative option in every situation—the focus is on a reasonable belief of necessity and a proportionate reaction to the threat.