Resisting a constable in the execution of their duty (Section 23 Summary Offences Act 1981)

Charge 1: Resisting a constable in the execution of their duty under section 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1981

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. This is called the standard of proof. It means you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that on 12 August 2018, Mr Zimmerman was a constable in the New Zealand Police Force?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that Constable Zimmerman was in the process of arresting Mr Smith at Cameron Road Tauranga on 12 August 2018?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that, when Mr Smith was being arrested by Constable Zimmerman, Mr Smith forcibly resisted?
	To “resist” requires opposition by some degree of force against some course of action which the constable is attempting to pursue. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that, when Constable Zimmerman was arresting Mr Smith, he was acting in the execution of his duty?
	“Acting in the execution of his duty” means that Constable Zimmerman was acting legitimately in exercising the powers given to him as a constable. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that, when Mr Smith was resisting arrest, he knew that Constable Zimmerman was a constable?
	[Note: Knowledge of the fact that Constable Zimmerman was a constable is assumed in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise. Therefore, this issue will only need to be put to the jury where the defendant has pointed to some evidence to raise the issue. If there is such evidence, the Crown is required to prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.] 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, when Mr Smith was resisting arrest, he knew that Constable Zimmerman was acting in the execution of his duty?
	[Note: Knowledge of the fact that Constable Zimmerman was acting in the execution of his duty is assumed in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise. Therefore, this issue will only need to be put to the jury where the defendant has pointed to some evidence to raise the issue. If there is such evidence, the Crown is required to prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.] 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 had no lawful excuse for resisting arrest?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.