Manslaughter by omission (Sections 160(2)(b) and 152(b) Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Manslaughter under sections 160(2)(b) and 152(b) 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 Mr Smith is the parent of Timothy Smith (Timothy)?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that, on or about 2 August 2022, Timothy was a child under the age of 18 years?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that, on or about 2 August 2022 at Christchurch, Mr Smith had actual care of Timothy?
	‘Actual care’ means that Mr Smith must have had responsibility for Timothy at the time of his alleged conduct which is the subject of the charge. This does not require Mr Smith to have had sole responsibility. Temporary care can be sufficient. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that, during the period when Timothy was in Mr Smith’s care, Mr Smith failed to take reasonable steps to protect Timothy from injury by: (a) Consuming methamphetamine; and (b) Having consumed methamphetamine, allowed Timothy to fall from his chair and strike his head on a table.
	‘Injury’ means to cause actual bodily harm. That is discomfort that is more than minor or momentary. The harm need not be permanent or long-lasting. It may be internal or external. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five
5.	Are you sure that Mr Smith’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect Timothy from injury was a major departure from the standard of care expected from a reasonable person in the circumstances?
	A ‘major departure’ is a departure from the standard that is expected of a reasonable person. There must be a high degree of, or gross, negligence. Simple negligence will not suffice. The first step is to consider whether there has been a departure from the standard of care expected from a reasonable person. However, this in itself is not sufficient. The second step is to consider whether such departure was major by reference to community standards. The conduct looked at as a whole must be so bad so as to be considered criminal. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question six.
6.	Are you sure Mr Smith’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect Timothy from injury was dangerous?
	'Dangerous’ means that the conduct was likely to cause more than trivial harm to Timothy. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question seven.
7.	Are you sure that Mr Smith’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect Timothy a from injury was a substantial and operative cause of Timothy’s 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, find Mr Smith guilty.