-
Hi I've got a procedural question I think you may be able to answer. A few pages back you wrote:
For involuntary act manslaughter, four points need to be established:
- that the accused has committed an unlawful act;
- that the act was the cause of death;
- that the accused intended to commit the act;
- that a sober and reasonable person would recognise that the act carried some risk of harm, however slight
Do you think the jury will be asked to find on these points individually or just deliver an overall verdict?
As it seems that the case hinges on the interpretation of point 2 (brakeless = cause of death), I'd feel more comfortable if I knew the jury were focusing on it.
- that the accused has committed an unlawful act;
BlakeG-
After the closing arguments the judge will give a summing up explaining the law involved, summarising the prosecution and defence, and direct the jury as to what questions must be answered to establish if the prosecution has proven its case. So my expectation is that the judge will direct the jury to consider those four points, and to make a decision on each point that is disputed by the defence (so probably not point 1 about brakelessness being illegal).
Caveat - I never practiced, just did the degree, so a practicing barrister would know much better than I.
h2o
I don't think we should prejudge the jury's decision here (re whether or not he has 'broken multiple laws').