Appendix B: Example sequential questions from New Zealand

Updates and background for this project (Digest)

Step 1 (Homicide): Did Paul’s blow cause the death?

• Are you sure that Paul’s blow with a tomahawk caused the deceased’s death? If so, move to the next question.

• Are you sure that Paul’s fatal blow was the intentional and harmful application of force to the person of another, and that unless it amounted in law to “defence of another”, it would constitute an assault and therefore be unlawful.
• The blow would be justified, and therefore not unlawful, if:
  
  a) it were delivered in the defence of Allan; and

  b) it involved no more force than, in the circumstances as Paul subjectively believed them to be, it was objectively reasonable to use.

• If the Crown has failed to exclude defence of another, the Crown has failed to establish culpable homicide. Enter NOT GUILTY verdicts for all accused on all counts and proceed no further.
• If the Crown has excluded defence of another (that is, it has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Paul was not acting in defence of another in the legal sense), Paul has committed a culpable homicide and is guilty of at least manslaughter. In those circumstances proceed to the next question.

• For present purposes, there was murderous intent if, at the moment he struck the deceased, Paul:
  
  a) meant to cause the deceased’s death; or

  b) meant to cause the deceased bodily injury that he knew was likely to cause death, being reckless as to whether death ensued or not.

• If the Crown has not established that Paul had murderous intent in one of those senses, you will find Paul NOT GUILTY OF MURDER but GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER and proceed to the sections dealing with Allan and Darren.
• If the Crown has established that Paul did have murderous intent in one of those senses, proceed to the next question.

• For present purposes, Paul was acting under provocation if:
  
  a) in the circumstances of the case it was sufficient to deprive a person having the power of self-control of an ordinary person but otherwise having the characteristics of Paul, of the power of self-control; and

  b) it did in fact deprive Paul of the power of self-control and thereby induced him to strike the fatal blow.

• If the Crown has excluded provocation (that is, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Paul was not acting under provocation) and proved that Paul had murderous intent, find Paul GUILTY OF MURDER and proceed to the sections dealing with Allan and Darren.

Source: New Zealand, Institute of Judicial Studies, Criminal Jury Trials Bench Book (2006) Appendix 6.