Possession of an offensive weapon or disabling substance (Section 202A(4)(b) Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Possession of an offensive weapon [or disabling substance] under section 202A(4)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961

On questions 1–2 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 1–2 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 on 4 August 2019, Mr Smith had possession of the knuckleduster?
	[Note: Where there is an issue as to whether the object in question constitutes an “offensive weapon”, this is likely to be an issue which the trial judge should hear argument on and determine. In doing so, the trial judge should have recourse to the definition in s 202A(2).]To have possession of the knuckleduster, Mr Smith must: (a) Have been aware of where the knuckleduster was; (b) Have been aware that the item was a knuckleduster; (c) Have had control over the knuckleduster either through personal or shared custody or by having the ability to direct another who had personal custody; and (d) Have intended to exercise personal or shared control over the knuckleduster. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that Mr Smith had possession of the knuckleduster in circumstances that, on the face of it, showed Mr Smith had an intention to use the knuckleduster to commit a crime involving bodily injury or the threat of violence?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
On question 3 the burden of proof lies on Mr Smith. He must satisfy you on the balance of probabilities, which means “more likely than not”.
3.	Has Mr Smith satisfied you that it is more likely than not that he did not intend to use the knuckleduster to commit a crime involving bodily injury or the threat of violence?
	If yes, find Mr Smith not guilty. If no, find Mr Smith guilty.