Case Law Flashcards
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
DPP v Smith
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious
R v Waters
A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidence by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal
R v Rapana and Murray
The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
R v Donovan
Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognized 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
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 either meant to cause the specified harm, or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose other to the risk of suffering it.
R v Wati
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
R v Pekepo
A 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 s198A CA 1961
R v Skivington
Larceny is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary
R v Cox
Possession involves two elements. The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge an intention; knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is is his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.
R v Maihi
It is implicit in ‘accompanying’ that there must be a nexus 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
Peneha v Police
It is sufficient that 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
