id stringlengths 8 15 | title stringlengths 9 156 | text stringlengths 10 2.72k | footnotes stringclasses 626
values |
|---|---|---|---|
B9.4.1-c6-s1 | 9.4.1 Defences | ## Defences
[*If any of the defences in s 474.24 are relevant, insert appropriate directions on that defence here**.*] | null |
B9.4.1-c7-s1 | 9.4.1 Summary | ## Summary
To summarise, before you can find the accused guilty, you must be satisfied that the prosecution has proved the following four elements beyond reasonable doubt:
One – the accused intentionally accessed material.
Two – the accused used a carriage service to access this material.
Three – the material is ch... | null |
10.1-c1-s1 | 10.1 Investigations into Unfitness to Stand Trial | # 10.1 Investigations into Unfitness to Stand Trial
## Overview
1. People cannot be tried for criminal offences unless they are fit to stand trial (R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1; R v Benyon [1957] 2 QB 111; Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1).
2. The issue of fitness to stand trial relates to the accused’s conditio... | [^2]: All references to legislative sections and schedules refer to the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). |
10.1-c2-s1 | 10.1 When must an Investigation into the Accused’s Fitness be Held? | ## When must an Investigation into the Accused’s Fitness be Held? | null |
10.1-c2-s2 | 10.1 When must an Investigation into the Accused’s Fitness be Held? | 1. A judge must order an investigation into the accused’s fitness to stand trial if it appears that there is a "real and substantial question" about that issue (s 9).
2. A "real and substantial question" will exist whenever it would be open to a properly instructed jury to conclude that the accused was not fit to stan... | null |
10.1-c2-s3 | 10.1 When must an Investigation into the Accused’s Fitness be Held? | 6. Failing to order an investigation where there is a real and substantial question about the accused’s fitness to stand trial will constitute a fundamental defect in the trial procedure, rendering the trial a nullity (Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1).
7. It is not clear whether the change from the jury determini... | null |
10.1-c3-s1 | 10.1 Procedure for Ordering an Investigation | ## Procedure for Ordering an Investigation
1. The issue of the accused’s fitness to stand trial may be raised at any stage of the proceedings by the prosecution, the defence or the judge (s 9; Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; R v Presser [1958] VR 45).
2. The procedure for ordering an investigation differs, de... | null |
10.1-c4-s1 | 10.1 Nature of an Investigation | ## Nature of an Investigation
## Role of the Judge
1. The question of the accused’s fitness to stand trial is a question of fact (s 7(3)).
2. It is presumed that every person is fit to stand trial. The judge's role in an investigation is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether that "presumption of... | [^3]: In such cases, the jury must still determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the presumption of fitness has been rebutted. |
10.1-c4-s2 | 10.1 Nature of an Investigation | 8. According to section 6(1) of the Act, to find a person unfit to stand trial the judge must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that because his/her mental processes are disordered or impaired, s/he is (or will be at some time during the trial):
1. Unable to understand the nature of the charge; or
2. Una... | [^3]: In such cases, the jury must still determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the presumption of fitness has been rebutted. |
10.1-c4-s3 | 10.1 Nature of an Investigation | 12. The judge should determine whether the accused is unfit to stand trial in a common sense fashion – because if the test is applied too literally, it may incorrectly set a threshold for fitness that can only be met by a person of very high intelligence (Sinclair v The King (1946) 73 CLR 316; R v Presser [1958] VR 45)... | [^3]: In such cases, the jury must still determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the presumption of fitness has been rebutted. |
10.1-c4-s4 | 10.1 Nature of an Investigation | 17. A person will not be unfit to stand trial simply because s/he is suffering from memory loss (e.g. s/he cannot remember the facts surrounding the alleged offending) (s 6(2); R v Dennison NSWCCA 3/3/1988).
18. Bizarre or disruptive behaviour does not, of itself, render a person unfit to be tried (Eastman v The Queen... | [^3]: In such cases, the jury must still determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the presumption of fitness has been rebutted. |
10.1-c4-s5 | 10.1 Nature of an Investigation | ### Future Unfitness
20. In assessing whether an accused is fit to be tried, the judge is required to consider both his/her present condition and his/her likely condition during the trial (s 6(1)).
21. The expected length of the trial may affect the jury’s assessment of the accused’s likely future condition. They m... | [^3]: In such cases, the jury must still determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the presumption of fitness has been rebutted. |
10.1-c4-s6 | 10.1 Nature of an Investigation | 26. While the accused does not need to be insane to be considered unfit to stand trial, his/her incapacity must be caused by impaired or disordered mental processes (Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 s 6(1)).
27. This does not mean that the accused must suffer from a mental illness. A perso... | [^3]: In such cases, the jury must still determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the presumption of fitness has been rebutted. |
10.2-c1-s1 | 10.2 Special Hearings | # 10.2 Special Hearings
## Overview
1. The Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) (the Act)[^2] sets out the procedure to be followed if a person may be unfit to stand trial. This procedure applies to all trials, regardless of when the alleged offences were committed (Schedule 3).
2.... | [^2]: All references to legislative sections or schedules refer to the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). |
10.2-c2-s1 | 10.2 When Must a Special Hearing be Held? | ## When Must a Special Hearing be Held?
1. There are three stages at which a judge may be required to order a special hearing:
1. At the conclusion of an investigation into the accused’s fitness to stand trial;
1. At the end of an adjournment period following a finding of unfitness; or
2. Upon application by the ... | null |
10.2-c3-s1 | 10.2 Purpose of a Special Hearing | ## Purpose of a Special Hearing
1. The purpose of a special hearing is to determine whether, on the evidence available, the accused:
- Is not guilty of the offence charged;
- Is not guilty of the offence charged because of mental impairment; or
- Committed the offence charged or an available alternative offence... | null |
10.2-c4-s1 | 10.2 Onus of Proof | ## Onus of Proof
1. To find that the accused committed the offence charged, or an available alternative offence, the jury must be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt (s 17(2)).
2. To find the accused not guilty because of mental impairment, the jury must be satisfied by defence argument on the balance of... | null |
10.2-c5-s1 | 10.2 Procedure | ## Procedure
1. At a special hearing, the accused is taken to have pleaded not guilty (s 16(2)(a)).
2. Special hearings should be conducted as nearly as possible as if they were criminal trials. To that end:
- The Juries Act 2000 applies;
- The rules of evidence apply;
- Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 197 and ... | null |
10.2-c6-s1 | 10.2 Mandatory Directions | ## Mandatory Directions
1. At the start of a special hearing, the judge must explain to the jury:
- That the defendant is unfit to be tried in accordance with the usual procedures of a criminal trial;
- The meaning of being unfit to stand trial;
- The purpose of the special hearing;
- The findings that are ava... | [^3]: As these directions are required by law, Part 3 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 does not apply (Jury Directions Act 2015 s 10). |
10.2-c7-s1 | 10.2 Other Directions | ## Other Directions
1. As special hearings must be conducted (as far as possible) as if they were criminal trials, judges must give any other directions which must ordinarily be given in a criminal trial. See Directions Under Jury Directions Act 2015 for information on when directions are required.
2. Judges must b... | null |
10.2.1-c1-s1 | 10.2.1 Charge: Special Hearing | # 10.2.1 Charge: Special Hearing
This charge addresses the directions which *must *be given at the beginning of a special hearing (*Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997* s 16). It has been designed to be used instead of 1.5.1 *Charge: The Role of Judge and Jury* and 1.7.1 *Charge: Onus and Sta... | null |
10.2.1-c2-s1 | 10.2.1 Fitness to Stand Trial | ## Fitness to Stand Trial
Members of the jury, you represent one of the most important institutions in our community – the institution of the jury. Our legal system guarantees any individual charged with a criminal offence the right to have the case presented against him or her determined at a trial by twelve independ... | null |
10.2.1-c2-s2 | 10.2.1 Fitness to Stand Trial | ## Reasons for Unfitness
The accused’s unfitness for a normal trial may or may not be apparent to you as this hearing proceeds. That is because there are several reasons why a person may be unfit to stand trial.
S/he may not, for example, understand the nature of the charge against him/her, or be able to decide wheth... | null |
10.2.1-c3-s1 | 10.2.1 Purpose of a Special Hearing | ## Purpose of a Special Hearing
The fact that a person is not fit to stand trial does not prevent a jury from determining whether or not s/he committed a crime. It simply means that the matter may not be determined in accordance with the usual procedures of a criminal trial. Instead, it must be determined at what is c... | null |
10.2.1-c4-s1 | 10.2.1 Differences between Special Hearings and Criminal Trials | ## Differences between Special Hearings and Criminal Trials
## Available Findings
The verdicts that you may give in a special hearing differ from those that you may give in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an offence, you must give a verd... | null |
10.2.1-c5-s1 | 10.2.1 Roles of Judge, Jury and Counsel | ## Roles of Judge, Jury and Counsel
In all hearings of this type, the court consists of a judge and jury. We are going to be assisted in this case by counsel for the prosecution, [insert prosecutor’s name], and defence counsel, [insert defence counsel’s name].[^2] Each of us has a different role to play.
## Role of... | [^2]: This sentence will need to be modified if the accused is unrepresented.
[^3]: This section will need to be modified if the accused is unrepresented. |
10.2.1-c5-s2 | 10.2.1 Roles of Judge, Jury and Counsel | ## Role of Counsel
The role of counsel is to present the case for the side for which they appear. [Insert name of prosecutor] presents the charge[s] in the name of the State. [Insert name of defence counsel] appears for the accused, and will represent him/her throughout the hearing.[^3]
You do not need to accept any ... | [^2]: This sentence will need to be modified if the accused is unrepresented.
[^3]: This section will need to be modified if the accused is unrepresented. |
10.2.1-c6-s1 | 10.2.1 Onus and Standard of Proof | ## Onus and Standard of Proof
I’m now going to give you directions about the standards of proof. The starting point is that in our justice system people are presumed to be innocent, unless and until they are proved guilty. This principle applies in this special hearing just as it does in a regular trial.
As the prose... | [^4]: See **Mental Impairment and Proof of Elements **in 8.4 Mental Impairment for information on which elements should be identified for this purpose. |
10.2.1-c6-s2 | 10.2.1 Onus and Standard of Proof | As I mentioned before, the third verdict you can return is “not guilty because of mental impairment”, and the accused must establish this on the balance of probabilities. This is one of those rare situations in which a matter must be proved by the defence. The prosecution must still prove [*identify matters the prosecu... | [^4]: See **Mental Impairment and Proof of Elements **in 8.4 Mental Impairment for information on which elements should be identified for this purpose. |
11-c1-s1 | 11 Factual Questions and Integrated Directions | # 11 Factual Questions and Integrated Directions
## Understanding factual question directions
1. *Jury Directions Act 2015* s 67 permits a judge to give directions in the form of factual questions which address the matters the jury must consider in order to reach a verdict. When combined with evidentiary directio... | [^2]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Crim LJ* 278, 293, 295-6.
[^3]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Cr... |
11-c1-s2 | 11 Factual Questions and Integrated Directions | Unlike question trails, which utilize a sequence of concrete questions that make explicit reference to the facts of the case; checklists typically utilize a sequence of abstract questions of law that reflect the elements of the case.[^4]
7. Directing a jury by reference to factual questions is not new. In 1973, Luca... | [^2]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Crim LJ* 278, 293, 295-6.
[^3]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Cr... |
11-c1-s3 | 11 Factual Questions and Integrated Directions | He held that the only law which it was necessary for them to know was SO much as must guide them to a decision on the real issue or issues in the case, and that the judge was charged with, and bound to accept, the responsibility (1) of deciding what are the real issues in the particular case, and (2) of telling the jur... | [^2]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Crim LJ* 278, 293, 295-6.
[^3]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Cr... |
11-c1-s4 | 11 Factual Questions and Integrated Directions | By reducing everything to a series of questions presented concisely and simply the subtleties of legal definitions might be lost or the law "glossed" for convenience. For example, in multi-handed murders, following *Jogee*, D2 must be shown, inter alia, to have intended that D1 intentionally kill or do GBH. The Supreme... | [^2]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Crim LJ* 278, 293, 295-6.
[^3]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Cr... |
11-c1-s5 | 11 Factual Questions and Integrated Directions | 14. In *Star v The Queen*, the trial judge gave the jury a document which was described on appeal as “a series of ‘integrated directions’ (commonly described as a ‘question trail’), as authorised by s 67 of the *Jury Directions Act 2015*”. This document contained a statement of the element, the particulars of the eleme... | [^2]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Crim LJ* 278, 293, 295-6.
[^3]: Jonathan Clough et al, ‘The Judge as Cartographer and Guide: The Role of Fact-based Directions in Improving Juror Comprehension’ (2018) 42 *Cr... |
11-c2-s1 | 11 Preparing factual question directions | ## Preparing factual question directions
1. The following topics in this Charge Book provide examples of factual question directions and checklists.
2. In developing these samples, the authors of the Charge Book adopted the following sequence:
1. Develop a hypothetical model for the trial which identifies the fact... | [^13]: *Quail v The Queen* [2014] VSCA 336, [43], citing *R v Getachew* (2012) 248 CLR 22, 27 [10], 32-3 [25]. |
11-c2-s2 | 11 Preparing factual question directions | 6. The sample question trails, factual question directions and integrated directions are designed for a specific hypothetical scenario. Like all materials in this charge book, they must be adapted to address the real issues in any given case, based on the evidence and issues.
7. After preparing the proposed question t... | [^13]: *Quail v The Queen* [2014] VSCA 336, [43], citing *R v Getachew* (2012) 248 CLR 22, 27 [10], 32-3 [25]. |
11-c3-s1 | 11 Timing of factual question directions | ## Timing of factual question directions | [^14]: See, e.g., Sir Brian Leveson, [‘Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings’, (2015) 78-9](../customXml/item1.xml) [302]-[303].
[^15]: This approach was adopted in the UK Criminal Practice Directions following amendments made on [30 March 2016](../customXml/item2.xml). However, this language is no longer part o... |
11-c3-s2 | 11 Timing of factual question directions | 1. Judicial experience with factual question directions has shown some success in providing the directions before closing addresses.[^14] This may be termed the ‘split charge’ approach.[^15]
2. The purpose of a split charge is to ensure the jury knows and is focused on the precise questions they will need to decide b... | [^14]: See, e.g., Sir Brian Leveson, [‘Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings’, (2015) 78-9](../customXml/item1.xml) [302]-[303].
[^15]: This approach was adopted in the UK Criminal Practice Directions following amendments made on [30 March 2016](../customXml/item2.xml). However, this language is no longer part o... |
11-c3-s3 | 11 Timing of factual question directions | 6. It is possible to give factual question directions without adopting a split charge approach. If a judge adopts the traditional sequence, then the factual question directions are given at the same time as they would be when giving traditional offence-specific directions. This will be, in the language of the Jury Dire... | [^14]: See, e.g., Sir Brian Leveson, [‘Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings’, (2015) 78-9](../customXml/item1.xml) [302]-[303].
[^15]: This approach was adopted in the UK Criminal Practice Directions following amendments made on [30 March 2016](../customXml/item2.xml). However, this language is no longer part o... |
11-c3-s4 | 11 Timing of factual question directions | Last updated: 24 October 2024 | [^14]: See, e.g., Sir Brian Leveson, [‘Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings’, (2015) 78-9](../customXml/item1.xml) [302]-[303].
[^15]: This approach was adopted in the UK Criminal Practice Directions following amendments made on [30 March 2016](../customXml/item2.xml). However, this language is no longer part o... |
11.1-c1-s1 | 11.1 Consolidated Final Directions – Split Charge[^2] | # 11.1 Consolidated Final Directions – Split Charge[^2]
## Overview of Final Directions
Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence that will be called in this trial. I will soon invite counsel to address you and put arguments to you about how to approach the evidence and issues in this trial. But befo... | [^2]: This document was last updated on 1 January 2023. |
11.1-c2-s1 | 11.1 Using the question trails - Alternative Charges on the Indictment | ## Using the question trails - Alternative Charges on the Indictment
[*If there are alternative charges on the indictment, add the following shaded section*]
In this case, charges [*insert principal charge*] and [*insert alternative charge*] relate to the same alleged event, and are alternatives. The prosecution does... | [^3]: This charge is based on the assumption that the charges are of differing gravity. If the charges are of the same gravity, it will need to be modified accordingly. |
11.1-c3-s1 | 11.1 Using the question trails - Alternative Charges Not on the Indictment | ## Using the question trails - Alternative Charges Not on the Indictment
[*If there are alternative charges not on the indictment, add the following shaded section*]
In this case, the accused has been charged with [insert principal offence]. The law says that when a person is charged with this offence, you are entitl... | [^4]: This charge is based on the assumption that the charges are of differing gravity. If the charges are of the same gravity, it will need to be modified accordingly. |
11.1-c4-s1 | 11.1 Closing addresses of counsel | ## Closing addresses of counsel
[Prosecuting counsel], you may now address the jury.
[*Prosecution counsel’s final address*]
Thank you [prosecuting counsel]. [Defence counsel], you may now address the jury.
[*Defence** counsel’s final address*]
Thank you [defence counsel]. | null |
11.1-c5-s1 | 11.1 Final directions | ## Final directions
Before you leave to consider your verdict, I must remind you the principles of law you must apply when you decide the case. While I have already told you some of these principles at different times during the trial, it is important that I both remind you of what I said earlier, and place those prin... | null |
11.1-c6-s1 | 11.1 Review of the Role of the Jury | ## Review of the Role of the Jury
In this case, the prosecution alleges that NOA committed the offence[s] of [*insert offences*].[^5] These are the offences stated in the indictment and on your question trails. The accused has pleaded “not guilty”, and so it is for you, and you alone, to decide whether s/he is guilty... | [^5]: This charge is drafted for cases involving one accused. If the case involves multiple accused, it will need to be modified accordingly. |
11.1-c7-s1 | 11.1 Review of the Role of the Judge | ## Review of the Role of the Judge
It is my role, as the **judge**, to explain to you the principles of law that you must apply when you are answering the questions on the question trails. You must accept and follow all of those directions.
I want to emphasise again that it is **not** my responsibility to decide this... | null |
11.1-c8-s1 | 11.1 Review of the Role of Counsel | ## Review of the Role of Counsel
Throughout the trial, **counsel** have presented the prosecution and defence cases. While their comments and arguments have been designed to assist you to reach your decision, you also do not need to accept what they have said. Of course, if you agree with an argument they have present... | null |
11.1-c9-s1 | 11.1 Review of the Need to Decide Solely on the Evidence | ## Review of the Need to Decide Solely on the Evidence
I have told you that it is your task to determine the facts in this case. In determining the facts, you must consider all of the evidence that you heard from the witness box. Remember, it is the answers the witnesses gave that are the evidence, not the questions t... | [^6]: Depending on the nature of the evidence, it may be necessary to warn the jury of the possible dangers of conducting experiments in the jury room: see Decide Solely on the Evidence for further information.
[^7]: If the accused is unrepresented, the jury should be told that what s/he said in his/her addresses, or w... |
11.1-c9-s2 | 11.1 Review of the Need to Decide Solely on the Evidence | ## Outside Information
At the start of the trial I also told you that you must not base your decision on any information you may have obtained outside this courtroom. For example, you must completely ignore anything that you have seen or heard in the media about this case, or about the people involved in it. You must ... | [^6]: Depending on the nature of the evidence, it may be necessary to warn the jury of the possible dangers of conducting experiments in the jury room: see Decide Solely on the Evidence for further information.
[^7]: If the accused is unrepresented, the jury should be told that what s/he said in his/her addresses, or w... |
11.1-c10-s1 | 11.1 Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences | ## Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences
I will now give you some directions about how you approach the evidence in this case.
Evidence comes in many forms. It can be evidence about what someone saw or heard. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone's opinion.
Some evidence can prove a fact... | null |
11.1-c10-s2 | 11.1 Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences | However, when putting all the pieces together, you must take care not to jump to conclusions. It is sometimes easy for people to be too readily persuaded of a fact, on the basis of insufficient evidence or evidence that turns out to be truly coincidental. Once convinced of that fact, they may then seek support for it... | null |
11.1-c11-s1 | 11.1 Review of the Assessment of Witnesses | ## Review of the Assessment of Witnesses
You have now listened to what each witness has said, and watched how they presented their evidence and answered the questions under cross-examination. No further evidence will be given.
To decide what the facts are in this case, you now need to assess the evidence. It is up to... | null |
11.1-c12-s1 | 11.1 Review of the Onus and Standard of Proof | ## Review of the Onus and Standard of Proof
I want to emphasise again that under our justice system people are presumed to be innocent, unless and until they are proved guilty. So before you may return a verdict of guilty, the prosecution must satisfy you that [each of] the accused is guilty of the charge[s] in questi... | null |
11.1-c13-s1 | 11.1 Judge’s Summary of Issues and Evidence | ## Judge’s Summary of Issues and Evidence
I am now going to remind you of some of the evidence and arguments you have heard. Before doing so, I want to remind you again that the mere fact that I may leave out a part of a particular witness’ evidence does not mean that that evidence is not important.
Similarly, the fa... | null |
11.1-c14-s1 | 11.1 Sole Evidence Direction | ## Sole Evidence Direction
[*If there is a single piece of evidence relied on to prove one or more elements, add the following shaded section*.]
In this case, the only evidence that [*identify relevant elements or facts in issue*] is the evidence that [describe relevant single piece of evidence, e.g., NOA confessed t... | null |
11.1-c15-s1 | 11.1 Liberato Direction | ## Liberato Direction
[*If the case turns on a conflict between the evidence of a prosecution witness and a **defence** witness, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury will think that they must believe the **defence** evidence to be true before they can acquit the accused, add the following shaded section*... | null |
11.1-c16-s1 | 11.1 Review of Separate Consideration - Multiple Accused | ## Review of Separate Consideration - Multiple Accused
[*If the case involves multiple accused, add the following shaded section*].
I now want to remind you of the significance that there are [number] separate accused. As I told you at the start of the trial, there are really [*insert number*] trials [all] being hear... | null |
11.1-c17-s1 | 11.1 Review of Separate Consideration – Multiple Charges | ## Review of Separate Consideration – Multiple Charges
[*If the case involves multiple charges, add the following shaded section*].
I now want to remind you of the significance that there are [*number*] separate charges.
I want to remind you that you must be careful not to allow the convenience of one jury deciding ... | null |
11.1-c18-s1 | 11.1 Unanimous and Majority Verdicts | ## Unanimous and Majority Verdicts
I will now explain the verdicts you can return and how you reach them.
In almost all criminal cases, a verdict of guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. That is, whatever decision you make, you must all agree on it.
So if, for example, you are to find NOA guilty of [insert charge ... | [^10]: This paragraph should be excluded in cases of murder, treason, offences against sections 71 or 72 of the *Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981*, or offences against a law of the Commonwealth, as majority verdicts are not permitted in relation to such offences (*Juries Act 2000* s 46). |
11.1-c19-s1 | 11.1 Using the question trails - Materially Different Issues or Consequences | ## Using the question trails - Materially Different Issues or Consequences
[*The following shaded section may be added if evidence has been presented which shows possible alternative bases of responsibility for a particular offence, and the bases involve **materially different issues or consequences**. For example, cu... | null |
11.1-c20-s1 | 11.1 Using the question trails - Multiple Discrete Acts | ## Using the question trails - Multiple Discrete Acts
[*The following shaded section may be added if evidence has been presented of multiple acts **on the basis of** which guilt can be found, but there must be unanimity as to at least one [or a specified number] of those acts having been committed. *
*This requiremen... | null |
11.1-c21-s1 | 11.1 Taking a Unanimous Verdict | ## Taking a Unanimous Verdict
**Once you have reached a unanimous verdict** on [all of] the charge[s], you should push the buzzer in the jury room and tell my tipstaff. [He/she] will then arrange for us all to return to court.
When you have taken your places in the jury box, my associate will ask you whether you have... | null |
11.1-c22-s1 | 11.1 Concluding Remarks | ## Concluding Remarks
## Questions
If, at any stage of your discussions, you would like me to repeat or explain any directions of law I have given you, please do not hesitate to ask. It is fundamental that you understand the principles you are required to apply. If you have any doubt about those principles, then yo... | [^11]: In *MRJ v R* [2011] VSCA 374, the Court of Appeal stated that jurors should be instructed to omit any information on the outcome of discussions when asking for further directions or assistance. |
11.2-c1-s1 | 11.2 Rape (2015) Sample Question Trail and Charge | # 11.2 Rape (2015) Sample Question Trail and Charge
Charge # – Rape
1. Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on an occasion between 31 December 2023 and 1 January 2024, NOA intentionally penetrated the vagina of NOC with his penis?2. Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOC did no... | [^2]: If you have already directed the jury about this offence, then you should modify the following directions minimise repetition and highlight charge-specific differences.
[^3]: The question must be modified for other forms of sexual penetration. |
11.2-c2-s1 | 11.2 Lack of consent | ## Lack of consent
The second question is “Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOC did not consent to that act?”
Consent means free agreement. So the prosecution must prove that NOC did not freely agree to NOA penetrating her vagina at the time.[^4]
A person can consent to an act only if they are... | [^4]: If this element is not in issue, it will generally be sufficient to state that conclusion at this point and elaborate no further. |
11.2-c3-s1 | 11.2 No reasonable belief in consent | ## No reasonable belief in consent
The third question is “Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA did not reasonably believe NOC was consenting to that act of sexual penetration?”
This question requires you to consider the accused’s state of mind about the complainant’s consent.
A belief will onl... | [^5]: This direction will need to be modified if the intoxication is not self-induced. See *Jury Directions Act 2015 *s 47(3)(b)(ii) and Charge: Statutory Intoxication (Self-induced) for guidance. |
11.2-c4-s1 | 11.2 Summary | ## Summary
In summary, as you can see on the question trail, if you answer no to any question, then you must find NOA not guilty of this charge. It is only if you answer yes to each question that you can find NOA guilty of this charge. | null |
11.3-c1-s1 | 11.3 Incest (2015) Sample Question Trail and Charge | # 11.3 Incest (2015) Sample Question Trail and Charge
***Charge # – Incest***
Not guilty of charge #.Go to charge #.Not guilty of charge #.Go to charge #.**Note**: The parties have agreed that NOC is NOA’s daughter, and NOA knew that NOC was his daughter.
1. Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that [o... | [^2]: If you have already directed the jury about this offence, then you should modify the following directions minimise repetition and highlight charge-specific differences.
[^3]: If the case raises the issue of medical or hygienic procedures, the question trail and directions should be modified to provide an addition... |
11.3-c1-s2 | 11.3 Incest (2015) Sample Question Trail and Charge | - First, the law says that the vagina includes the external genitalia – that is the outer or external lips of the vagina. So the prosecution can prove this element by proving that NOA introduced his tongue to any extent between the outer lips of NOC’s vagina.
- Second, NOA’s tongue does not need to have gone all the w... | [^2]: If you have already directed the jury about this offence, then you should modify the following directions minimise repetition and highlight charge-specific differences.
[^3]: If the case raises the issue of medical or hygienic procedures, the question trail and directions should be modified to provide an addition... |
11.4-c1-s1 | 11.4 Intentional Murder Sample Question Trail and Charge | # **11.4 Intentional Murder Sample Question Trail and Charge**
**1. Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA shot NOV on [date]?1. Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA shot NOV on [date]?****Charge # - Murder**
NoNoNot guilty of charge #.Go to charge #.Not guilty of charge #.... | null |
11.4-c2-s1 | 11.4 Causation | ## Causation
The second question is “Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA’s gunshot was a cause of NOV’s death?”
The most relevant evidence on this question will be the medical evidence you heard from NOW.
In this case you have heard evidence that there were several people who shot at NOV, and... | null |
11.4-c3-s1 | 11.4 Voluntariness | ## Voluntariness
The third question is “Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA shooting the gun was conscious, voluntary and deliberate?” These words each have a special meaning in law, which I will briefly explain.
The term “conscious” excludes the acts of an unconscious person, such as a sleepw... | null |
11.4-c4-s1 | 11.4 State of Mind of the Accused | ## State of Mind of the Accused
The fourth question is “Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt either:
1. that NOA intended to kill NOV when he shot NOV? or
2. that NOA intended to cause NOV really serious injury when he shot NOV?”
When I say “really serious injury”, I am not using a technical legal... | null |
11.4-c5-s1 | 11.4 Self-defence | ## Self-defence
The fifth question is “Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA did not believe it was necessary to shoot NOV to defend himself from being shot by NOV?”
As I understand the defence case, one argument you will hear is that even if you are satisfied that NOD shot NOV, then NOD only di... | null |
11.4-c6-s1 | 11.4 Summary | ## Summary
In summary, as you can see on the question trail, if you answer no to any question then you must find NOA not guilty of this charge. It is only if you answer yes to each question that you can find NOA guilty of this charge. | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.