|
Where am I now? Lawlink > Homepage > Consultation Paper 4 (2008) - Jury directions > Consultation Paper 4 (2008) - Jury directions
|
Print page
|
Consultation Paper 4 (2008) - Jury directions
Appendix C: Example issues table from New Zealand
Updates and background for this project (Digest)
| Count | Issues | Comments |
| Count 1 – Murder | 1. Did the accused assault the deceased so as to inflict head injuries capable of resulting in the subdural haemorrhage from which the deceased died? | 1. The first issue is a straightforward question of fact. The Crown case is largely circumstantial. |
 | 2. Were the head injuries that were inflicted by the accused a substantial and operating cause of the deceased’s death? | 2. Assuming that issue 1 has been resolved in favour of the Crown, the fundamental issue then becomes whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that any incident on the trampoline, or other possible accident or assault involving the deceased, was not of such significance as to prevent the accused’s assault being a substantial and operating cause of death. |
 | 3. At the time these injuries were inflicted, did the accused know that death was the likely consequence of the bodily injuries that he intended to inflict, and was he reckless as to whether death resulted? | 3. The Crown case on this issue is a matter of inference arising principally out of the severity of the injuries that were inflicted on the deceased, and the time it would have taken to inflict them. |
| Count 2 – Manslaughter by an unlawful act, namely assault. | 1. Did the accused assault the deceased so as to inflict head injuries capable of resulting in the subdural haemorrhage from which the deceased died? | 1. The first issue is a straightforward question of fact. The Crown case is largely circumstantial. |
 | 2. Were the head injuries inflicted by the accused a substantial and operating cause of the deceased’s death? | 2. Assuming that issue 1 has been resolved in favour of the Crown, the fundamental issue is whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that any incident on the trampoline, or other possible accident or assault involving the deceased, was not of such significance as to prevent the accused’s assault being a substantial and operating cause of death. |
Source: New Zealand, Institute of Judicial Studies, Criminal Jury Trials Bench Book (2006) Appendix 7.
|
|