Aggravated assault on a constable (by force) (Section 192(2) Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Aggravated assault on a constable (by force) under section 192(2) 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 intentionally punched Ms Jones [or Mr Green] [or Mr Walters]?
	The punch must be an application of force to Ms Jones. The slightest degree of force is enough. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If you answer yes and Mr Smith is relying on the defence of consent, go to question two. If you answer yes and Mr Smith is not relying on that defence, go to question four.
2.	Are you sure that Ms Jones did not consent to the punch?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith did not believe that Ms Jones consented to being punched?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that, at the time of the punch, Ms Jones was a constable in the New Zealand Police Force [or Mr Green was acting in aid of Ms Jones, who was a constable in the New Zealand Police Force] [or Mr Walters was a court bailiff]?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that, at the time of the punch, Mr Smith knew or assumed that Ms Jones was a constable in the New Zealand Police Force? [or knew or assumed that Mr Green was acting in aid of Ms Jones, who was a constable in the New Zealand Police Force] [or knew or assumed that Mr Walters was a court bailiff]?
	In addition to actual knowledge being sufficient, Mr Smith is considered to have “known” something if he was wilfully blind or indifferent to it. Mr Smith was wilfully blind if he deliberately ignored the true situation. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question six.
6.	Are you sure that, at the time of the punch, Mr Smith knew or assumed that Ms Jones was acting in execution of her duty when requesting the alcohol breath test? [or knew or assumed that Mr Walters was acting in the lawful execution of any process, namely seizing Mr Smith’s stereo]?
	In addition to actual knowledge being sufficient, Mr Smith is considered to have “known” something if he was wilfully blind or indifferent to it. Mr Smith was wilfully blind if he deliberately ignored the true situation. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question seven.
7.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to obstruct Ms Jones in the execution of her duty [or Mr Green when he was acting in aid of Ms Jones] [or Mr Walters in the lawful execution of any process] when he threw the punch?
	Mr Smith must have intended to make it more difficult for Ms Jones to administer the alcohol breath test [or for Mr Green to act in aid of Ms Jones, and as a result making it more difficult for Ms Jones to execute her duty] [or for Mr Walters to lawfully execute the process of seizing goods]. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.