Strangulation (Section 189A Crimes Act 1961)
Charge 1: Strangulation under section 189A 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 on 19 July 2019 at Tauranga, Mr Smith applied pressure to Ms Jones’ throat and neck [or blocked Ms Jones’ nose and mouth]? |
|
If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two. |
|
| 2. |
Are you sure that, by applying pressure to Ms Jones’ throat and neck [or blocking Ms Jones’ nose and mouth], Mr Smith impeded Ms Jones’ normal breathing [or blood circulation] [or both]? |
|
If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three. |
|
|
3.
|
Are you sure that, when Mr Smith applied pressure to Ms Jones’ throat and neck, Mr Smith a) intended to impede Ms Jones’ normal breathing; OR b) was reckless as to whether he impeded Ms Jones’ normal breathing.
“Reckless” means that Mr Smith recognised that there was a real possibility that he would impede Ms Jones’ normal breathing 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 you answer no to both 3(a) and (b), find Mr Smith not guilty. If you answer yes to either 3(a) or (b), find Mr Smith guilty. Note: All 12 of you do not need to agree on which of (a) or (b) above applies, as long as all 12 of you are sure that either (a) or (b) applies. |