Arson (Section 267(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Arson under section 267(1)(a) 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 that you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that Mr Smith damaged the backpackers hostel by fire [or explosive]?
	A temporary change, even slight, in the hostel may constitute damage if it affects the value or usefulness of the hostel. Whether that amounts to damage will depend on the circumstances. There is damage if there is some burning or charring to the structure of the hostel. Where the effect of his actions on the hostel is minor, readily reversible and does not impair the hostel value, there is no damage. “Property” includes land and personal property, and any right or interest in any land or personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and any right to a claim in court, and any other right or interest. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to damage the backpackers hostel by fire [or explosive] or was reckless as to whether he did so?
	“Reckless” means that Mr Smith recognised there was a real possibility that the hostel could be damaged by fire and that, having regard to that possibility, Mr Smith’s actions were unreasonable. “Unreasonable” actions are actions that a reasonable and prudent person would not have taken. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith knew or ought to have known that danger to life was likely to result?
	“Life” means human life. “Ought to have known” means a person of Mr Smith’s intelligence and capacity would have recognised that his actions were likely to cause a danger to human life. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.