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

Charge 1: Aggravated assault 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 raised his fist above his head in a way that amounted to a threat to punch Ms Jones [or Mr Green] [or Mr Walters]?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to threaten Ms Jones [or Mr Green] [or Mr Walters] with the gesture?
	It is not necessary that he intended to actually carry out the threat. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith had the ability, at the time of making the threat, to carry out that threat?
	If no, go to question four. If yes, go to question five.
4.	Are you sure that Mr Smith caused Ms Jones [or Mr Green] [or Mr Walters] to believe on reasonable grounds that Mr Smith had the ability, at the time of making the threat, to carry out that threat?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that, at the time of the threat, 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 six.
6.	Are you sure that, at the time Mr Smith made the threat, 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 seven.
7.	Are you sure that, at the time Mr Smith made the threat, 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 eight.
8.	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 made the threat?
	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 the stereo]. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.