Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CIB Modules 22/23 - Mwby42 > 010 - Violence > Flashcards

010 - Violence Flashcards

1
Q

Liability: wounding with intent to GBH?

A

188(1)

  • with Intent to cause GBH to anyone
  • WMD, wounds maims disfigures or causes GBH
  • to any person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Liability: wounding with intent to injure?

A

188(2)

-with Intent injure/reckless disregard
- WMD, wounds maims disfigures or causes GBH
- to any person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is intent?

A

Am intention to commit the act (deliberate act) and intention to get a specific result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Case law: R v COLLISTER

A

Intent can be inferred from the circumstances

  • words/actions before during or after the offence
  • Surrounding circumstances
  • nature of the act itself
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What circumstantial evidences eve may assist to prove intent?

(Re assaults)

A
  • prior threats
  • premeditation
  • weapon use (brought opportunistic)
  • number of blows
  • degree of force
  • body parts hit
  • helplessness of victim
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case law: R v TAISALIKA

A

“Nature blow and gash”

The nature of the blow and gash it produced point strongly to the necessary intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case law: DPP v SMITH

A

DDP - fucked up GBH

Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Can bodily harm include psychiatric injury?

A

May include psychiatric injury but does not include mere emotions such as fear distress or panic

Injury should amount to an identifiable

“Owen v residential health management unit”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Case Law: R v WATERS?

A

Water = wound

Break in the continuity of the skin as evidence by the flow of blood may be internal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Maiming?

A

Mutilating, crippling or disabling a body part so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or a sense with some degree of permanence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Disfigure?

A

To deform or deface or mar and alter the figure of a person. Need not be permanent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

CASE LAW: R v RAPANA AND MURRAY

A

“RAPANA aka ROPATA DISFIGURE”

Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Doctrine of transferred malice?

A

Not necessary person harmed is victim. harm intended for one and accidentally inflicted on another the offender is still criminally liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Sec 2 - To injure

A

Means to cause actual bodily harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Case law : R MCARTHUR

A

McArthur-ahhhh the sword hurt me

Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health/comfort of victim and more than trifling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Define acting recklessly?

A

Consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

2 stage subjective and objective test of recklessness under CAMERON v R?

A

Subjectively:
actions bring proscribed result

AND

Objectively:
actions objectively unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Under recklessness is it necessary to recognise the extent of the injury at risk?

A

No, only foresaw the risk of injury, not necessary to recognise the extent of the injury that actually resulted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Liability: injuring with intent to GBH

A

189(1)

  • with intent to cause GBH to anyone
  • injured
  • another person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Liability: Injuring with intent to injure

A

189(2)

  • with intent to injure anyone/reckless disregard
  • injured
  • Any person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Liability: aggravated wounding

A

191(1) a-b-c

1- with intent to
2- commit/facilitate imprisonable offence OR
Avoid detection of himself/any person in commission of imprisonable offence OR
Avoid arrest or facilitate flight of himself or other upon commission or attempt of imprisonable offence
3- WMD GBH any person
OR stupefies or renders any person unconscious OR
By any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Liability: Aggravated injuring

A

191(2) a-b-c

1- with intent to
2- commit/facilitate imprisonable offence OR
Avoid detection of himself/any person in commission of imprisonable offence OR
Avoid arrest or facilitate flight of himself or other upon commission or attempt of imprisonable offence
3- Injures any person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Case law: R v TIHI

A

“ Tee hee hee, Aggravated intent”

In addition to a specific intent from paragraph a, b or c the offender meant to cause the specified harm or was reckless to that risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What does facilitate mean in terms of one of the elements in an aggravated wounding charge?

A

To make possible or to make easier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Case law: R v WATI

A

“Waati - whatever prove the crime”

Must be proof of crime or attempt by person committing assault or by person whose arrest or flight they intend to facilitate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What does the term
Violent means include in an aggravated wounding charge?

A

It may include the threats of violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Liability: aggravated assault

A

192 (1) a-b-c

1- assaults another person with intent to
2-
commit/facilitate imprisonable offence OR
Avoid detection of himself/any person in commission of imprisonable offence
OR
Avoid arrest or facilitate flight of himself or other upon commission or attempt of imprisonable offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Liability: discharge firearm with intent GBH

A

198 (1)(a)

  • with intent to GBH
  • discharges any firearm/airgun/similar weapon
  • at any person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Case law: R v PEKEPO

A

“Pew pew intent” 198(1)(a)

A reckless discharge of a firearm in a general direction of a passer by who gets hit is not sufficient an intention to shoot that person must be established

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Define a firearm?

A

Anything from which a shot/bullet/missile/projectile can be discharged by force of explosive. Includes anything capable by adaption, replacement or repair, a dismantled firearm or dangerous airgun

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Define an air gun?

A

Any air rifle or pistol or any weapon which by use of gas/compressed air any shot or bullet or projectile can be discharged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Sec 2- Define property?

A

Includes any real or personal property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Liability: Using firearm (any manna) against law enforcement officer

A

198A(1)

1- uses any FA any manner whatever
2- against any constable
3- acting in course of duty
4- knowing that OR being reckless person is a constable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Liability: Uses firearm (any manna) against law enforcement officer - Resists

A

198A(2)

1- uses any FA any manner whatever
2- with intent resist lawful arrest/detention of himself or other person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Uses in any manner whatever

A

handling/manipulating to convey implied threat of further use

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Case law: R v SWAIN

A

“Swain Swing a shotty”

removing a sawn off shotgun from bag after confronted by police is a use of FA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Re any manner whatever what is contemplated?

A

A situation short of actually firing the weapon but includes presenting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Section 198A - Acting in the course of duty meaning?

A

Includes every lawful acts constable does while on duty and include acts done from professional obligation off duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Case law: FISHER v R

A

Fisher- Matt fisher knows we outside to arrest him -198A(2)

Necessary to prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him otherwise mens rea of intent to resist arrest fails

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Liability: commission of an imprisonable offence with a firearm

A

198B(1)(a)

1- in committing any imprisonable offence
2- uses any firearm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Liability: commission of imprisonable offence with firearm (Prima facie intent)

A

198B(1)(b)

1- while committing any imprisonable offence
2- has any FA with him
3- circumstances Prima facie show intention to use it in connection with that imprisonable offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Has with him - expand the mens rea of this
(Firearms related)

A

Knowingly has firearm with him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Re a firearm define physical element of possession?

A

Physics custody or control over the item.
Actual and potential possession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Define actual and potential possession?

A

Actual= thing in persons physical custody/control

Potential= potential to have the thing in their control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Prima facie?

A

At first appearance OR

Sufficient to establish intent in absence to contrary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Components that make a F/A a MSSA?

A

Semi auto and 1 of following:

  • folding/telescopic butt
  • mag for .22 Rimfire and capable of holding more than 15 rounds
  • bayonet lugs
  • Flash suppressor
47
Q

Pistol

A

Any firearm designed or adapted to be held with one hand included any firearm less than 762mm length

48
Q

Restricted weapon?

A

Any weapon declared by Gov General to be so

49
Q

Section 66 arms act?

A

Reverse onus

Every person in occupation of land or a driver of a car on which any F/A etc found shall deemed to be in possession of it unless he proves its not his property and was in possession of another

50
Q

Liability: Robbery

A

234

1- theft
2- accompanied by violence/threats of violence
3- to any person/property
4- used to extort the property stolen or prevent/overcome resistance to its being stolen

51
Q

Theft definition

A

Dishonest taking and absence of claim
Of right and intention that the owner is permanently deprived of the property

52
Q

Dishonestly definition

A

Without belief in express or implied consent from person entitled to give such

53
Q

Claim of right definition?

A

Belief in proprietary or possessory right

(may be based on ignorance or mistake)

54
Q

Case law: R v SKIVINGTON

A

“Skive off theft claim right defence”

Theft is an element of robbery and if the honest belief that a defendant has a claim of right is a defence then it negates an element and the offence is not made out

55
Q

Taking definition? (When complete)

A

“Think Richard Mann at mitre 10 - fucken crown”

Complete the moment the item is moved with intent to steal it

56
Q

Case law: R v LAPIER

A

Robbery complete instant property taken even if possession is momentary

57
Q

Case law: R v COX (possession)

A

Possession involves 2 elements, 1st the physical element is actual or potential physical custody/control, the 2nd the mental element is a combo of knowledge and intention, knowledge substance is in their possession and an intention to exercise possession

58
Q

Proving possession?
(Firearms)

A

Proof of a physical element and a mental element

59
Q

Control - in relation to property

A

Means to exercise authoritative or dominating influence over it

60
Q

Case law: R v MAIHI

A

“MAIHI and MAHI are connected violence nexus”

Must be a nexus between the act of stealing and a threat of violence, both must be present.

61
Q

Violence at the time of the theft that constitute a robbery, does the violence or threat have to be proximate to the taking?

A

No, a threat with the necessary intent may have a continuing effect still operating on the victims mind

62
Q

Case law: PENEHA v POLICE

A

“Forcibly (peneha/penetrate) interfere freedom”
(Applies to violence part of robbery)

actions of def forcibly interfere with personal freedom, producing a powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort

63
Q

What is a threat of violence?

A

The manifestation of an intention To inflict violence unless property handed over conveyed by words/conduct and directly or indirectly

64
Q

Factors the court will consider of conduct that amounts to a threat of violence?

A

Ages
Physiques
Appearance
Demeanour
Said and done by offenders
Manner and setting

65
Q

Extort?

A

Obtain by violence or intimidation

66
Q

Prevent and overcome?

“Prevent or overcome resistance element of robbery”

A

Prevent- keep from happening

Overcome- to defeat

67
Q

Liability: Aggravated robbery (GBH)

A

235(a)

  • robs any person
  • at time of/immediately before or after robbery
  • causes GBH to any person
68
Q

Liability: Aggravated robbery (2G4)

A

235(b)

  • being together with any other person/s
  • robs any person
69
Q

Liability: Aggravated robbery (weapon)

A

235(c)

  • being armed with any offensive weapon/thing appearing to be such weapon
  • robs any person
70
Q

Case law: R v JOYCE

A

“Joyce = joint 2 or more ppl”

The crown must establish that 2 or more persons were physically present at time of robbery or assault

71
Q

Case law: R v GALEY

A

“Donald GALEY big tough guy together with”

2 or more persons having the intent to use their combined force to commit the offence

72
Q

Liability: assault with intent to rob (GBH)

A

236(1)(a)

  • with intent to rob any person
  • causes GBH to that person or another
73
Q

Liability: assault with intent to rob (weapon)

A

236(1)(b)

  • with intent to rob any person
  • being armed with any offensive weapon
  • assaults that person or another
74
Q

Liability: assault with intent to rob (2G4)

A

236(1)(c)

  • with intent to rob any person
  • being together with any other person
  • assaults that person
75
Q

Assault def?

A

Intentionally or attempting to apply force directly or indirectly to a person of another

76
Q

Liability: blackmail

A

237(1)(a)(b)

  • threatens expressly or by implication
  • to make any accusation against any person OR to disclose something OR cause serious damage to property/endanger the safety of any person
  • with intent
  • to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of person making threat AND
  • to obtain any benefit or cause loss to another
77
Q

Disclosure definition? (Blackmail)

A

Info that would cause serious embarrassment or emotional distress

78
Q

Obtain definition? (Blackmail)

A

To obtain or retain for himself or another

79
Q

Pecuniary advantage? (Blackmail)

A

Enhancing a persons financial position

80
Q

Benefit- what does this include under 237 for a blackmail charge or a 239 charge?

A

Any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service or valuable consideration

81
Q

Privilege? (Blackmail)

A

Special right or advantage

82
Q

Valuable consideration?

A

Money or Moneys worth

83
Q

Statutory defence to blackmail?

A

237(2)

Def believed they were entitled to obtain benefit and objectively viewed the threat made was reasonable and proper for obtaining the benefit

84
Q

Liability: Demanding with intent to steal?

A

239(1)

  • W/o claim of right
  • by force or threat
  • compels any person
  • to execute/make/accept/endorse/alter or destroy any document
  • capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage
  • with intent to obtain any benefit
85
Q

“Liability: Demands with menace?

A

239(2)

  • with menaces or by threat
  • demands any property from any persons
  • with intent to steal it
86
Q

Document definition?

A

A thing which provides evidence or info and serves as a record

87
Q

Liability: Abduction

A

208 (a) or (b) or (c)

-unlawfully
- takes away or detains
- a person
- without persons consent or with consent obtained by fraud or duress
- with intent to

a) go through marriage with person
b) to have sexual connection with person
c) cause person go through marriage or sexual connection with some other person

88
Q

Unlawfully? (Kidnap definition)

A

w/o lawful justification authority or excuse

89
Q

Taking away?

A

Physically removed from one place to another

90
Q

Case law: R v WELLARD

A

WELLARD = essence

The essence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with carrying the victim away from where they want to be

91
Q

Case law: R v CROSSAN
(Kidnaps)

A

CROOOOOS= seperate and distinct

Taking away and detaining are seperate and distinct offences. The 1st consists of taking victim away the 2nd of detaining her

92
Q

Detains def?

A

An active concept to impose a constraint/restraint on person

93
Q

Case law: R v PRYCE

A

“Price of custody”

Detaining is an active concept to keep in confinement or custody

94
Q

Case law: R v COX
(Consent)

A

Consent must be full free voluntary and informed, greet and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement

95
Q

Case law: R v MOHI

A

MOHI and MAHI = work complete

Offence complete once period detention or a taking accompanied by necessary intent

96
Q

Case law: R v WAAKA

A

“WAAKA = intent anytime”

Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away

97
Q

Liability: Kidnapping

A

209 (a/b/c)

1- unlawfully
2- takes away/detains
3- a person
4- without their consent or obtained by fraud/duress
5- with intent to
a) Hold for ransom
b) Cause be confined/imprisoned
c) Cause taken or sent out of nz

98
Q

Case law: R v M

A

“Intent take/no consent”
(Kidnapping)

Must prove intended to take or detain and knew complainant not consenting

99
Q

Ransom?

A

Sum of money demanded/paid for release of person held captive

100
Q

Confining or confined?

A

curtail movement and exercise control over them

101
Q

Imprisoned?

A

Put in prison, Has a narrower meaning than confine

102
Q

Liability: abduction young person

A

210(1)

1- with intent deprive parent of the possession of a young person
2- unlawfully
3- takes/entices/detains
4- The young person

103
Q

Liability: receiving a young person

A

210(2)

  • receives a young person
  • knowing they have been unlawfully taken/enticed/detained
  • with intent to deprive a parent of possession of them
104
Q

Case law: R v Forrest and Forrest

A

Crown must adduce the best evidence possible in order to prove a victims age

105
Q

Is consent a defence to any kidnap or abduction charge for a person under 16?

A

Immaterial whether a young person consents

106
Q

Smuggling penalty?

A

20 years

107
Q

Is attorney general authorisation required to charge for smuggling or trafficking?

A

Yes

108
Q

3 investigative approaches to trafficking?

A

Reactive - victim led
Proactive - police led
Disruptive - demands immediate response

109
Q

List some Differences between migrant smuggling and trafficking offences?

A

Consent

Purpose of travel

Relationships between offender/vic

Violence/intimidation/coercion

Liberty

Profit

110
Q

CAMERON v R

A

Recklessness

Recognising real possibility actions would bring a proscribed result and actions were unreasonable

111
Q

Case law: R v CROSSAN
(Agg wound)

A

“Crooooos”

Incapable resistance includes powerlessness of will + a physical inability

112
Q

Consent definition?

A

Persons conscious and voluntary Gary agreement to something proposed or desired by another

113
Q

“A persons hand or fingers are not a thing” relates to what case law?

A

R v BENTHAM

CIB Modules 22/23 - Mwby42 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions