Auriol Grey Directions of Law
The Law
Burden of proof
The prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. She does
not have to prove her innocence.
Standard of proof
The prosecution proves the defendant's guilt by making you sure
of it. Nothing less than that will do.
Manslaughter
A person commits manslaughter is he/she does an unlawful act that
a sane and reasonable person would realise would inevitably expose
another person to the risk of some harm ( and that other person dies
as a result).
If you concluded that what took place was or may have been an
accident, then you will find the defendant not guilty.
If you were sure that what took place was not an accident but found
that defendant was or may have been acting in self-defence, then
you will find her not guilty.
1
WHAT IS SELF DEFENCE?
In summary
1. A person who thinks she is under threat may use force to
defend herself and, as long as she uses reasonable force she will
be acting in lawful self-defence.
2. It is for the Crown to prove, that the defendant was not acting
in self-defence.
3 It is a two stage test.
Stage 1 – did she feel under threat (subjective)
4. You must first ask did she honestly believe that it was necessary
to use force to defend herself? She is not deprived of this defence
simply because she was mistaken about the need to use force.
If you are sure that she did not believe it was necessary to use
force, then self-defence fails, and the force used would be unlawful.
If she may have believed it was necessary to use force, go on to
the second stage.
Stage 2 – reasonable force (objective).
5. You must then decide whether the type and amount of force she
used was reasonable. A person who is under threat may react on
the spur of the moment and cannot be expected to work out exactly
how much force she needs to use and everyone has a degree of
latitude in that situation. If the reality is that she used no more
force than she instinctively thought necessary, that would be good
evidence that the force used was reasonable and therefore lawful.
2
6. If you conclude the defendant was or may have been acting in
lawful self-defence you must find her not guilty and that is the end
of the case, and you will go no further.
7. However, if she used force out of all proportion to the situation
she faced, then the force used would not be reasonable and her
actions would be unlawful.
8. If you reject self-defence, it means you have found that she used
unlawful force.
You will then ask: would a sane and reasonable person realise that
in doing what she did, would inevitably expose another person to
the risk of some harm?
If yes, verdict guilty.
If no, verdict not guilty.
3
ROUTE TO VERDICT
(After you have had a full discussion about the issues you will need
to make decisions, and if you follow this route to verdict it will help
you return a verdict which in accordance with the law)
Q 1 Was what took place or may it have been an accident?
If so, your verdict is not guilty. Go no further.
If not, go to Q2.
Q 2 Did she believe, or may she have believed it was necessary to
use force to defend herself?
If not, self-defence fails and you will go straight to Q4.
If yes, go to Q3.
Q3 Was the force that she used reasonable or may it have been
reasonable?
If yes, verdict not guilty. Go no further.
If no, self-defence fails. Go to Q4.
Q4 Would a sane and reasonable person realise that doing what she
did, would inevitably expose Mrs Ward to some harm?
If yes, verdict guilty. Go no further.
If no, verdict not guilty.
4
THE DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AT TRIAL
The defendant has chosen not to give evidence in support of her
defence.
A warning
You must remember that the defendant has a perfect right not to
give evidence and to require the prosecution to prove its case. You
cannot jump to the conclusion that her silence proves the case
against her. It does not. The burden remains on the prosecution to
prove its case so that you are sure.
How may the defendant’s silence be relevant to the case?
There is no evidence before you to contradict or undermine the
evidence for the prosecution save for what the defendant said in
interview. You will appreciate those answers carry less weight than
sworn evidence because they were not given on oath and were not
tested in cross examination.
What point do the prosecution make?
The prosecution argue that the reason why the defendant has
remained silent is that she has no answer to the prosecution case
or none that would stand up to examination.
What do you need to be satisfied of before accepting that argument?
You should only act on that argument if you regard the Prosecution
case as sufficiently strong to require an answer from her, and you
are sure that the only sensible explanation for her silence is her
awareness that she has no answer, or none that would bear
examination.
5
GOOD CHARACTER
The defendant has no criminal convictions, cautions or
reprimands and you have heard evidence about her character from
three witnesses.
1 This is a factor which you should take into account when
deciding whether you believe what she said in interview.
2. The fact that she is of good character means that she has no
known propensity to commit offences and is therefore less likely to
have committed this offence.
These are matters to which you should have regard in the
defendant's favour.
EXPERT EVIDENCE
Experts are entitled to give their opinion evidence on matters outside
the knowledge of lay people.
None of the expert evidence is in dispute and there is no rational
basis to depart from it.
But remember, the experts see their part of the case only. You try
the case on all the evidence.
UNANIMOUS VERDICT
You must return a unanimous verdict. If you have heard about
majority verdicts, put them out of your mind. If there comes a time
when I can accept a majority verdict, I will bring you back into
court and give you a further direction.
