Riotous damage (Section 90 Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Participating in a riot and causing damage to property under section 90 of the Crimes Act 1961

The Crown must prove each element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. This is called the standard of proof. It means you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that between 6 June and 17 June 2018 at Rimutaka Prison, Mr Smith was a member of a group of six or more persons (the Group) who had a common purpose including using violence against prison property? "Property" includes land and personal property, and any right or interest in any land or personal property.
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure the Group (including Mr Smith) acted together in using violence against property outside Block A (the Conduct)?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure Mr Smith was a wilful participant in the Conduct? "Wilful participant" means that Mr Smith knowingly associated with the Group. Mere physical presence is not enough.
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure the Conduct caused alarm to persons in the neighbourhood of the Group?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure Mr Smith damaged property outside Block A?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question six.
6.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to damage property outside Block A or was reckless as to whether he did so? "Reckless" means that Mr Smith recognised there was a real possibility that property outside Block A could be damaged and that, having regard to that risk, Mr Smith's actions were unreasonable. 'Unreasonable' actions are actions that a reasonable and prudent person would not have taken.
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question seven.
7.	Are you sure that Mr Smith damaged property outside Block A without claim of right? "Claim of right" means that Mr Smith had a genuine belief that, at the time of damaging the property, he had a lawful right to the property.
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question seven.
8.	Are you sure that at the time Mr Smith damaged property outside Block A he had no interest in that property? "Interest” in relation to any property, includes ownership or share of ownership, or a right to possession of the property.
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.