Murder or manslaughter or self-defence (Sections 48, 167 and 171 Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Murder or manslaughter under sections 167(a) – (b) and 171 of the Crimes Act 1961 where the defendant is relying on self-defence under section 48

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. That is called the standard of proof. It means that you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that Mr Smith hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer on 14 January 2019?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. Do not continue. 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. Do not continue. If yes, go to question three.
Self-defence If you reach this point, and before answering questions three and four, you must decide what Mr Smith believed the circumstances to be when he hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer. The circumstances include Mr Smith’s beliefs as to the nature and seriousness of any attack or threat and his beliefs as to its imminence and the courses of action available to avoid or combat it.
3.	Given those circumstances, Are you sure that Mr Smith was not acting to defend himself from Mr Jones when he hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer?
	If no, go to question four. If yes, go to question five.
4.	Are you sure that the force used by Mr Smith against Mr Jones was not reasonable in the circumstances as Mr Smith believed them to be?
	If your answer is no, find Mr Smith not guilty. Do not continue. If yes, go to question five.
5.	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.
	Bodily injury is harm that is more than trifling or transitory and which affects the health or comfort of the victim. “Knew” means that Mr Smith had an actual or conscious appreciation that death was likely. Likely” means that death could well happen or was a real risk. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty of murder and go to question six. If all 12 of you answer yes, find Mr Smith guilty of murder
Notes: You need not all agree on which intent Mr Smith had. But you must all be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Smith had either the intent set out in question 5(a) or the intent set out in question 5(b). Remember the intent set out in question 5(b) has three elements, all of which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If some of you answer “yes” to question 5(a) and the rest of you answer “yes” to all of questions 5(b)(i) and (ii) and (iii), then you would find Mr Smith guilty of murder. Manslaughter
6.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intentionally hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty of manslaughter. If yes, go to question seven.
7.	Are you sure that Mr Smith hitting Mr Jones on the head with the hammer was likely to cause more than trivial harm to Mr Jones?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty of manslaughter. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty of manslaughter.