Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

Withdrawal as a party to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Sections 66 and 188 Crimes Act 1961)

[Note: The defence has two requirements – first, conduct (either words or actions) that clearly demonstrates to others the defendant’s withdrawal from the offending; and secondly the withdrawing party must take reasonable and sufficient steps to either: (a) undo the effect of their previous participation; or (b) to prevent the crime. The evidence must disclose an evidential basis for both requirements of the defence before it is put to the jury. It is for the trial judge to decide if an evidential basis for both requirements exists: see Baker v R [2015] NZCA 306 at [69]–[79]; and Uhrle v R [2015] NZCA 412 at [82]–[90]. If an evidential basis for both requirements exists, the jury must be directed as to the defence. The defendant will be liable as a party only if the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had not withdrawn from involvement in the crime.]

Charge 1: Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under sections 66 and 188 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. That is called the standard of proof. It means you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.

Are you sure that on the morning of 13 September 2018, Mr Thomas used a machete to cut Mr Jones’ arm?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question two.
2.

Are you sure that the machete cut to Mr Jones’ arm was the cause of his bleeding?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question three.
3.

Are you sure that Mr Thomas, in cutting Mr Jones with the machete, intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Jones?
 

“Grievous bodily harm” is really serious harm interfering with health or human function.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question four.
4.

Are you sure that Mr Smith encouraged Mr Thomas to cut Mr Jones with the machete, by saying “let him have it” or words to the same effect?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question five.
5.

Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to encourage Mr Thomas to cut Mr Jones’ arm?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question six.
6.

Are you sure that Mr Smith knew that Mr Thomas was going to wound Mr Jones?
 

“Wound” means to cause an injury involving a breaking of the skin, a cut or laceration of some kind. This will usually be evidenced by a flow of blood, whether external or internal.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question seven.
7.

Are you sure that Mr Smith knew that Mr Thomas intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Jones?
 

“Grievous bodily harm” is really serious harm interfering with health or human function.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question eight.
8.

Are you sure that, when Mr Thomas was holding the machete, Mr Smith did not tell Mr Thomas “Let me have it, we don’t need this”?
 

If no, go to question nine.

If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.
9.

Are you sure that, in the circumstances, Mr Smith saying “Let me have it, we don’t need this” was not a reasonable and sufficient step to prevent Mr Thomas cutting Mr Jones’ arm with the machete?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.