Case Law Flashcards
R v Skivington
(Larceny) Theft is an ingredient of robbery,
honest belief claim of right
a defence to larceny.
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the moment the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox
Possession involves 2 elements:
Physical element:
- actual or potential custody or control.
Mental element:
- Knowledge and intention.
R v Maihi
Must be a nexus (link) between the:
- Act of stealing, and
- a threat of violence.
Both must be present, does not need to be contemporaneous.
Peneha v Police
Sufficient:
- Defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom, amount to powerful/violent action/motion, cause bodily injury or discomfort.
R v Broughton
Threat of violence:
- Manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless property or money is handed over.
- Threat may be direct or veiled, conveyed words or conduct or combination of both.
DDP V Smith
Bodily harm needs no explanation, and grievous means no more and no less that really serious.
R v Joyce
Must establish that at least 2 were physically present at time of robbery or assault occurred. JOINT ENTERPRISE
R v Gayle
“Joint enterprise” 2 or more persons, common intention, use combined force, in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
R v McArthur
Donovan
Bodily harm includes:
- Hurt or injury,
- interfere with health or comfort,
- need not be permanent,
- must be more than transitory and trifling.
Cameron V R
Recklessness: (RRP APR PCE AU)
- Recognises real possibility,
- actions bring about a prescribed result,
- prescribed circumstances exist,
- in relation to that risk, actions taken were unreasonable.
R v Waters
Breaking of the skin, evidenced by the flow of blood, may be external or internal.
R v Rapana & Murray
Not only permanent, can be temporary damage.
R v Collister
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.
R v Tihi
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c),
“it must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specified harm, or foresaw actions were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it”.
R v Wellard
kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be”.
R v Crossan
Taking away and detaining are “separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking away; the second of detaining.
The first offence was complete when the prisoner took the woman away against her will. Then, having taken her away, he detained her against her will, and his conduct in detaining her constituted a new and different offence.”
R v Pryce
Detaining active concept “keep in confinement or custody”.
This is to be contrasted to the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.
R v Rapana and Murray
‘disfigure’ “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
R v Wati
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.
R v Pekepo
reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof.
An intention to shoot that person must be established.
R v Swain
To deliberately or purposely remove a sawn-off shotgun from a bag after being confronted by or called upon by a police constable amounts to a use of that firearm within the meaning of s 198A Crimes Act 1961.
Fisher v R
necessary for the Crown to prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him, otherwise the element of mens rea of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established. 198A (2)
R v Cox (consent)
Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed … freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgment.”
Mohi
offence complete once there has been a period of detention or a taking accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out.
R v Waaka
Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commences without the intent to have intercourse, but that intent is formed during the taking away, then that is sufficient for the purposes of the section.
R v M
The Crown must prove accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that they knew complainant was not consenting:
R v Forrest and Forrest
“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.”
R v Crossan (Violence)
Incapable of resistance, powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.
