\u201cYou are here as members of the public, representing the community we all live in,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou are the judges of fact, and have to decide if the Crown has proved its case of murder against Ms Lee, beyond reasonable doubt.\u201d <\/p>\n
He instructed the jury to initially disregard any evidence implying Lee was insane so they could focus on elements of the murder charge first. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe Crown does not have to show she was sane at the time the children were killed. The defence of insanity does not arise until the elements of the charge of murder have been established. <\/p>\n
Parents Ian Jo and Hakyung “Jasmine” Lee had a “happy little family”, with children Yuna and Minu Jo, prior to Ian Jo’s cancer diagnosis, the defence has said at Lee’s double murder trial. She has said she was insane when she killed both children in Auckland in June 2018. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the Crown fails to prove the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt then you must find Ms Lee not guilty and the issue of insanity is irrelevant.\u201d <\/p>\n
The question of insanity came into play if the jury found Lee deliberately administered the drug, and it was a substantial and operative cause of the children\u2019s death, the judge said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the defence satisfy you Ms Lee did suffer from disease of the mind, then you must consider whether this meant she did not understand her actions in killing Minu and Yuna were morally wrong.\u201d <\/p>\n
The jury were also asked by Justice Venning not to let sympathy influence their decision. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s natural to feel sympathy for the young children who are killed. It\u2019s also natural to feel someone should be held responsible for their deaths. <\/p>\n
\u201cOn the other hand, some of you may feel sympathy for the defendant.\u201d <\/p>\n
He told the jury they must be objective, but to come to their verdicts on the basis of the evidence they\u2019d heard, and to do so fairly to both parties. <\/p>\n
\u201cYou are acting as judges.\u201d <\/p>\n
Lee attended the trial via video link, not speaking or raising her head. Justice Venning noted this demeanour, reminding the 12 jurors that her lack of engagement did not go against her and her case. <\/p>\n
He concluded his brief summary by reminding jurors that people make decisions in their everyday lives based on what they hear and read about issues. <\/p>\n
\u201cAnd that\u2019s really what you have to do in deciding whether Ms Lee was guilty or not guilty in this case.\u201d <\/p>\n
Defence\u2019s closing address<\/p>\n
Lee has represented herself, but her insanity defence is being delivered on behalf of her standby counsel. <\/p>\n
Criminal defence lawyer Lorraine Smith began her closing remarks yesterday by asking the trial\u2019s key question: <\/p>\n
\u201cHow does Jasmine Lee go from mother, father, two children, to taking her children\u2019s life and become the woman who has appeared on our screen in this courtroom over the last two weeks?\u201d <\/p>\n
Smith said the answer can be summarised in two words. <\/p>\n
\u201cMental illness.\u201d <\/p>\n
She described Lee as a fragile person, whose inability to cope with adding her husband to the list of those she\u2019d lost went unnoticed due to her dwindling support system. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn early 2018, her social circle shrinks to nothing.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo we have this vicious cycle of more isolation and the people who knew Jasmine were not around to see what was happening.\u201d<\/p>\n
Smith told the jury the Crown\u2019s theory was superficially attractive, but disintegrates under closer inspection. <\/p>\n
She said the Crown\u2019s theory that Lee wanted to leave within days, if not hours, of the deaths doesn\u2019t stack up, given she didn\u2019t leave until July 19 \u2013 on a return ticket. <\/p>\n
\u201cImagine what the Crown would have said to you if Jasmine had booked a one-way ticket for herself in early June.\u201d <\/p>\n
Jurors were shown screenshots of the children’s PlayStation 4 profiles and other game data indicating they might have been playing Minecraft on the same day they were killed. Composite photo \/ Dean Purcell, NZ Police<\/p>\n
Smith added that keeping her items in a storage unit doesn\u2019t fit with someone intending to leave for good, and questioned why a supposedly cold, calculated person would keep all of the family\u2019s belongings. <\/p>\n
Smith said Lee wasn\u2019t living under a false identity in Korea, having kept her last name and date of birth. <\/p>\n
The name change, Smith said, \u201cis more relevant to Korean ideas about fate, luck and superstition\u201d.<\/p>\n
Smith pointed to their sole witness, forensic psychiatrist Dr Yvette Kelly, who found Lee to be struggling with a major depressive disorder at the time of the killings. <\/p>\n
She told the jury to take Kelly\u2019s word that Lee was suffering from delusions at the time, evidenced by the fact Lee thought she\u2019d caused her father and husband\u2019s deaths by bringing bad luck on the family. <\/p>\n
She said Kelly\u2019s later revision of her stance, that Lee didn\u2019t know she was morally wrong, was based on a speculative timeline. <\/p>\n
The Crown suggested Lee made purchases such as bin bags, and changed her name, ahead of killing her children. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe Crown asks you to ignore the fact that these actions were equally consistent with other reasons. Namely, a plan to pack up the house because they\u2019re all going to Korea, and hoping for a new start with a lucky name.\u201d <\/p>\n
Smith told the jury the Crown\u2019s argument \u201cneeds you to treat Jasmine as a mentally healthy woman, who was taking rational steps to kill her children \u2013 and they can\u2019t do that”. <\/p>\n
The jury was also warned against guesswork and speculation, as Smith reiterated claims prosecutors pieced together a case from an investigation that started four years after the event. <\/p>\n
Throughout the trial, Lee has attended via video link, sitting still with her hands clasped and her head bowed. <\/p>\n
Smith referenced this demeanour when challenging the Crown\u2019s claims that Lee told multiple lies during her evolving account of events. <\/p>\n
She said prosecutors were wrong about Lee\u2019s forgetfulness and confusion, and it was a result of her mental state. <\/p>\n
\u201cShe\u2019s not a liar, ladies and gentlemen. She\u2019s mentally unwell. You\u2019ve seen her, she barely has the will to lift her head.\u201d<\/p>\n
Crown addresses the jury<\/p>\n