I see.
He is right in saying that through the operation of the statutory defence "you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds."
Which you claimed was wrong. It isn't. Legislation providing for statutory defences use language like "A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault..." - in the case of provocation. You'll note the assault is still deemed to have occurred, it's just that the provoked party is legally excused from the consequences. Similar language exists in other such statutory defence legislation.
He is right in saying that through the operation of the statutory defence "you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds."
Which you claimed was wrong. It isn't. Legislation providing for statutory defences use language like "A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault..." - in the case of provocation. You'll note the assault is still deemed to have occurred, it's just that the provoked party is legally excused from the consequences. Similar language exists in other such statutory defence legislation.