Injuring by unlawful act (Section 190 Crimes Act 1961)

[Note: This question trail assumes the allegation that the amount of heroin was a significant overdose beyond the usual amount consumed by users.]

Charge 1: Injuring by an unlawful act under section 190 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 injured Ms Jones by injecting her with heroin?
	To “injure” 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 two.
2.	Are you sure that Mr Smith knew that heroin was a controlled drug or was reckless as to whether it was a controlled drug?
	“Reckless” means that Mr Smith recognised that there was a real possibility that the substance was a controlled drug and, having regard to that possibility, his 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 injecting that quantity of heroin was likely to cause harm to Ms Jones?
	[Note: The likelihood of harm resulting from injecting heroin will depend on the amount injected.] If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If you answer yes and Mr Smith is relying on the defence of consent, go to question four. If you answer yes and Mr Smith is not relying on that defence, go to question six.
4.	Are you sure that Ms Jones did not consent to being injected with that quantity of heroin?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that Mr Smith did not believe that Ms Jones consented to being injected with that quantity of heroin?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question six.
6.	Are you sure that, if Ms Jones had died, the injection of that quantity of heroin would have been a substantial and operative cause of her death?
	A “substantial and operative cause” does not have to be the main or only cause of death. But, it must play a part which is not insubstantial or insignificant. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.