Case law Flashcards
R v Koroheke
The genitalia comprise the reproductive organs, interior and exterior … they include the vulva (and) the labia, both interior and exterior, at the opening of the vagina
Application: genitalia
R v Cox
(Lots and lots of Cox!)
Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed … freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgment
Application: consent
R v Gutuama
(Gutuama - Gucci - Gucci shoes - SHOES)
Under the objective test the Crown must prove that “no reasonable person in the accused’s shoes could have thought that the complainant was consenting”. Application: consent
R v Forrest and Forrest
(Forest, trees, paper)
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age Application: proving age
R v Court
(Court - tennis - A tennis coach holds his student’s bottom while she serves - says it helps with her serve)
(Application: indecency)
Indecency means “conduct that right-thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of (the complainant)”
Application: indecency
R v Dunn
(‘Dunn’ in light of the time, place and circumstances - and it didn’t involve trifle)
Indecency must be judged in light of the time, place and circumstances. It must be something more than trifling, and be sufficient to “warrant the sanction of the law” Application: indecency
R v Leeson
(Rhymes with Neeson - “I will find you. And I will kill you. For doing an indecent act on me.”)
The definition of ‘indecent assault’ “… is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency … Application: indecent assault
R v Norris
(Who would be brave enough to convict Chuck Norris of indecent assault?)
If a person who is charged with indecent assault is able to establish that they honestly believed that the complainant was consenting, they are entitled to be acquitted even though the grounds of his belief were unreasonable Application: indecent assault: defence
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent Application: intent (serious assaults)
R v Collister
( Big ‘C’ - Circumstantial)
Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred can include: - the offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event - the surrounding circumstances - the nature of the act itself Application: intent
DPP v Smith
(3 DPP’s v 1 Smith in a fight = GBH to Smith)
‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grevious’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’ Application: GBH
R v Waters
(Water flows like blood from a wound)
A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood’. May be internal or external. Application: wound
R v Rapana and Murray
(Think of two guys named Rapana and Murray dipping somone’s hand into hot oil - it is temporarily disfigured but able to be fixed with skin grafts)
Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
Application: disfigures
R v McArthur
(Mc ARRRRRRRRR Fuck that hurt when he smashed my kneecaps!!!)
(Application: injures)
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but it must be more than transitory and trifling.
Application: injures
Cameron v R
(Shane Cameron the ex-boxer hiffing a full can of baked beans recklessly into a crowd - Recklessness)
Recklessness is established if: (a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that: (i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or (ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and (b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable Application: recklessness
R v Tipple
(I’m going to ‘Tip all’ these stones off the bridge and onto the cars below - Recklessness)
(Application: recklessness)
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.
Application: recklessness
R v Wati
(‘WAT’ the hell is ‘I’ doing with that knife!?!)
(Application: aggravated wounding)
There must be proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate
Application: aggravated wounding
R v Tihi
(Tee hee hee - remember the tent skit in Austin Powers - two ‘X’ in tents - aggravated wounding)
(Application: aggravated wounding)
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a) - (c), it must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.
Application: aggravated wounding
R v Sturm
(Sturm - Sperm - Rape: man threatens a woman with a gun to make her stop struggling and submit to being raped, whether or not he rapes her. If he commits rape - separate charge).
To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime Application: stupefy
R v Crossan
(They CROSS over)
(Application: incapable of resistance)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.
Application: incapable of resistance
R v Wellard
(It’s ‘well hard’ to carry a person away)
(Application: kidnapping (takes away)
The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be”.
Application: kidnapping (takes away)
R v Pryce (Pryce - price - $$$ = ransom)
(Application: kidnapping (detains)
Detaining is an active concept meaning to “keep in confinement or custody”. This is to be contrasted with the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.
Application: kidnapping (detains)
R v Mohi
(Mohi - Mohair - from an Angoran goat - intends to shave the goat for the mohair at the time of taking him away)
The offence is committed at the time of the taking away, so long as there is, at that moment, the necessary intent. It has never been regarded as necessary … that the Crown should show the intent was carried out. Application: kidnapping/abduction - offence complete
R v Chartrand
(He sharted and ran when he was busted for abduction)
(Application: abduction (young person)
“Whether the defendant may have had an innocent motive, or intended to interfere with possession for a very short time is beside the point”.
Application: abduction (young person)
R v Cox
(Coxen in a rowing 8 - think of a coxen in a rowing 8 - steroids for the team are in the back but he knows where they are - they’re under his control and he has an intention to dish them out to the team before the race)
Possession involves two … elements.
The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control.
The second, often described as the mental element … is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession … and an intention to exercise possession.
Application: possession
R v Misic
(Misic = Misc. - the ‘misc’ folder on our computers with all our ‘miscellaneous’ documents on them)
Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record Application: document
AP Simester and WJ Brookbanks
Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”. The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot ‘know’ something that is false. Application: guilty knowledge
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaay! Don’t USE my document!)
(Application: uses a document (attempts)
An unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one. An unsuccessful use must not be equated conceptually with an attempted one. The concept of attempt relates to use - not to the ultimate obtaining of a pecuniary advantage, which is not a necessary ingredient of the offence. Because the use does not have to be successful it may be difficult to draw a clear line between use and attempted use.
Application: uses a document (attempts)
R v Cara
(Cara sounds like a really good value for $ car eg, Nissan Cara)
(Application: service)
Service is limited to financial or economic value, and excludes privileges or benefits.
Application: service
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaaaaay! Look at all of my pecuniary advantage!)
A pecuniary advantage is, “anything that enhances the accused’s financial position. It is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage“. Application: pecuniary advantage
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaaaay! I’m flush with valuable consideration!)
A valuable consideration is, “Anything capable of being a valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind; in short, money or money‘s worth”. Application: valuable consideration.
R v Lapier
(Lapier - Lap - The robber had the stolen phone on his ‘Lap’ while he rode away but the phone fell out of his ‘Lap’).
(Application: Robbery complete)
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
Application: Robbery complete
R v Skivington
(Give me back my skivvies!)
(Application: claim of right – defence to robbery.)
Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery.
Application: claim of right – defence to robbery.
R v Peat
(P - Purge)
(Application: robbery complete.)
The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence.
Application: robbery complete.
R v Maihi
(“MAy I HIt you?” … 2 hours later - steals wallet - not enough of a nexus to link to robbery)
“It is implicit in ‘accompany‘ that there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing .… and a threat of violence. Both must be present.” However the term “does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous .… “
Application: robbery nexus
Peneha v Police
(Powerful Peneha)
(Application: violence – robbery)
The actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.
Application: violence – robbery
R v Broughton
(Unless the money or property is handed over, violence will be Brought-on)
A threat of violence is “the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both“.
Application: threat of violence – robbery
R v Pacholko
(Pacholko the Russian gangster does not scare you)
(Application: threat of violence – robbery)
The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of the nerves of the person threatened‘.
Application: threat of violence – robbery
R v Wells
(A do gooder getting pushed down a well by an offender when they intervene in a robbery)
There is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within the section.
Application: to any person – robbery
R v Joyce
(Joyce - choice = two mates - “Choice bro! Hi five! We robbed that bitch!”
“The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred“.
Application: together with – robbery
R v Galey
(Galey - Gay bashing - almost always a team of offenders - pack mentality)
(Application: together with – robbery)
Two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.
Application: together with – robbery
R v Bentham
(Aggravated robbery using a ham can be prosecuted. If your ham is missing you will be acquitted)
“What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing.”
Application: armed with – offensive weapon
R v Morley
(My intent to deceive grows morely day by day)
An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception. Application: intent to deceive – deception
Simester and Brookbanks
The debt or liability must be legally enforceable. This means that if the contract is void or legal there will be no offence. Application: debt or liability
Simester and Brookbanks
(Application: thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage)
The ‘thing‘ must be tangible and must be capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage.
Application: thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage
R v Archer
(Archer with a flaming arrow)
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value. Application: damage to property
R v Wilson
(Donald Trump interersted in tenanting Wilson parking buildings)
Tenancy of a property constitutes an interest in it. Application: interest in property
R v Morley
(Morley - More - More Money - less money - the victim has suffered loss of money from the arson of their vehicle)
“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the (offence) has been diminished or impaired.”
Application: cause loss
Saxton v Police
(SaXton - importing Xtasy)
To import includes “to introduce or bring in from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country“.
R v Strawbridge
(An innocent woman thinks she is growing straw (tomato plants) when she is acutally growing cannabis = not guilty)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, knowledge on her part will be presumed. However if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so. Application: guilty knowledge
R v Hancox
(Think of people being smuggled into NZ for sexual exploitation - all attractive Russian women - the smugglers continually have their hands on their c***s)
“Importation“ involves active conduct. It does not cease as the aircraft or vessel enters the New Zealand territorial limits. The process of importation exists from the time the goods enter New Zealand until they reach their immediate destination or have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become available to the consignee or addressee“. Application: imports (drug dealing)
Police v Emerali
(Emerali sounds Spanish - imagine a Spanish drug trafficker with a tiny bit of cocaine in his pocket)
(Application: usable quantity (drug dealing)
“The serious offence of possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.”
Application: usable quantity (drug dealing)
R v Rua
(Rua Bioscience produce OR manufacture medicinal cannabis)
The words “produce“ or “manufacture“ in s6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug. Application: produce/manufacture (drug dealing)
R v Donald
(After investing in Wilson parking buildings, Donald Trump is now sitting in his Trump Towers with a mountain of cocaine for supply)
Supply includes the distribution of jointly owned property between its co-owners. Application: supply (drug dealing)
R v Knox
(Knox - No X - giving the X back to it’s original possessor)
“A person who is in unlawful possession of a controlled drug, which has been deposited for safekeeping, has the intent to supply that drug to another if his intention is to return the drug to the person who deposited it with him.” Application: Intent to supply (drug dealing)
R v Wildbore
(scenario - out in the WILD with the boar, shed on property, key in hiding spot, LSD kept in shed … tells offender where the key is and permits them to access the drugs)
A “passive custodian” who relinquishes custody of a drug to meet the needs of another, has the necessary intent for supply.
Application: intent to supply (drug dealing)
R v During
(During this time I can now offer to supply you drugs)
(Application: offer to supply (drug dealing)
“(An offer is) an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by the statute.”
Application: offer to supply (drug dealing)
R v Brown
(H G M C - High Girls Motorcycle Club)
“… The making of such an intimation, with the intention that it should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence.”
Offering to supply a controlled drug can arise in a variety of ways:
*Offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
*Offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
* Offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
* Offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug.
Application: Offer to supply (drug dealing)
R v Crosson
(The offences CROSS over)
‘Taking away’ and ‘detaining’ are separate and distinct offences.
The first offence was complete when the victim was taken away against her will. The second was complete when she was detained against her will - new/different offence.
