Murder or insanity (Sections 23 and 167 Crimes Act 1961)
Charge 1: Murder or insanity under sections 23 and 167 of the Crimes Act 1961
On questions 1–6, the Crown must prove the element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove the elements in questions 1–6 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 Mr Smith hit Mr Jones on the head with a hammer on 14 January 2019? |
If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two. |
|
2. | Are you sure that being hit on the head with the hammer was a substantial and operative cause of Mr Jones’ death? |
A “substantial and operative cause” does not have to be the main or the only cause of death. But, it must have played a part which was not insubstantial or insignificant. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three. |
|
3. |
Are you sure that, when he hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer: (a) Mr Smith intended to kill Mr Jones? OR (b) Mr Smith: (i) intended to cause Mr Jones bodily injury that was more than minor in nature; AND (ii) knew that his actions were likely to cause Mr Jones’ death; AND (iii) consciously ran the risk that Mr Jones could die as a result of his actions. |
If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four. |
|
Note: If some, but not all of you, are sure that the answer to 3(a) is “yes”, and the rest of you are sure that the answers to each of questions 3(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) are “yes”, so that all 12 of you answered either “yes” to 3(a) or “yes” to all of questions 3(b)(i), (ii) and (iii), then go to question four. On questions 4–6, the burden of proof lies on Mr Smith, who must satisfy you on the balance of probabilities, which means “more likely than not”. |
|
4. | Has Mr Smith satisfied you that it is more likely than not that, when he killed Mr Jones, Mr Smith had schizophrenia [or a natural imbecility]? |
[Note: It will be necessary to include in the question the specific disease of the mind which is alleged.] If yes, go to question five. If no, find Mr Smith guilty of murder. |
|
5. |
Has Mr Smith satisfied you that it is more likely than not that, because of the schizophrenia [or a natural imbecility], he did not understand the nature and quality of what he was doing? |
If yes, find Mr Smith not guilty. If no, go to question six. |
|
6. | Has Mr Smith satisfied you that it is more likely than not that, because of the schizophrenia [or a natural imbecility], he did not know that what he was doing was morally wrong? |
If yes, find Mr Smith not guilty. If no, find Mr Smith guilty of murder. |
|
Note: if you find Mr Smith not guilty, then once you give that verdict you will be asked a further question. That question, and your answer, would be as follows: Question: have you found Mr Smith not guilty on account of his insanity? Answer:
|