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, Mr Smith intended to kill Mr Jones?
	If no, go to question four. If all 12 of you answer yes, go to question seven. If not all 12 of you answer yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that, when he hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer, Mr Smith intended to cause Mr Jones bodily injury that was more than minor in nature?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that, when he hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer, Mr Smith knew that his actions were likely to cause Mr Jones’ death?
	“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. If yes, go to question six.
6.	Are you sure that, when he hit Mr Jones on the head with the hammer, Mr Smith consciously ran the risk that Mr Jones could die as a result of his actions?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty of murder. If yes, go to question seven. If some, but not all of you, are sure that the answer to question three is yes, and some, but not all of you, are sure that the answer to question six is yes, so that all 12 of you answered yes to either question three or six, then you must go to question seven.
On questions 7–9 the burden of proof lies on Mr Smith, who must satisfy you on the balance of probabilities, which means “more likely than not”.
7.	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 eight. If no, find Mr Smith guilty of murder.
8.	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 of murder because of insanity. If no, go to question nine.
9.	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 of murder because of insanity. If no, find Mr Smith guilty of murder.