I can try to clarify that.
The first element of self-defence is the reasonable perception of the accused that there is a threat. The second element is the accused's subjective intention to act for a defensive purpose and not another purpose. Both of those requirements are certainly factors in the third requirement, along with all the other relevant factors, in determining whether, from the objective man's perspective, the act of the accused, who reasonably and subjectively perceived a threat and acted solely for a defensive purpose, was reasonable. Given everything else we know of the circumstances, do we the jury consider that action to be reasonable, given the reasonable perception and given the subjective defensive purpose?
When one looks at all of the elements together, there is still quite a lot of emphasis on the subjective perceptions and intentions of the accused. Along with the list of all other factors that may be relevant, it's through that door that the courts will also consider any other reasonable perceptions of the accused that factor into the determination.
Overall, our view would be that the balance is appropriate.