Case Law Flashcards
R v MANE
Application: AATF
To be considered an accessory, the acts done must be after the offence is complete
R v CROOKS
Application: AATF
Actual knowledge and no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence
R v MORLEY
Loss (Deception case)
Loss assessed by extent complainants position prior to offence is diminished/impaired
R v ARCHER
Property damage (arson case)
Property may be damaged if suffers
Permanent/temporary physics harm or
Permanent/temporary impairment of use or value
CAMERON v R
Recklessness
Recognising real possibility actions would bring a proscribed result and actions were unreasonable
R v TIPPLE
Conscious appreciation of risk and a deliberate decision to run the risk
R v COLLISTER
Intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidences and inferred from:
1 - Offenders actions/words before or during and after
2 - the surrounding circumstances
3 - the nature of the act itself
R v TAISALIKA
The nature of the blow and gash produced point strongly to the presence of necessary intent
R v MCARTHUR
Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health/comfort of victim and more than trifling
DPP v SMITH
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or less than really serious
R v WATERS
Wound = breaking of the skin evidenced by flow of blood (internal/external)
R v TIHI
Application (agg wounding)
Intended to facilitate an imprisonable offence or an intent from paragraph a-c
AND
Intended to cause specific harm OR
Was reckless to that risk
R v WATI
Aggravated wounding:
Must be proof of commission/attempted commission of a crime by person committing the assault or person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate
R v STURM
Stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind/nervous system which tealy seriously interferes with persons mental or physical ability to act which might hinder a crime
R v CROSSAN (incapable resistance)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity
R v RAPANA and MURRAY
Disfigures covers temporary damage too not just permanent
R v SKIVINGTON
A honest belief of claim of right is a defence to the theft element of robbery
R v LAPIER
Complete robbery instant property taken
R v PEAT (repeat return)
Immediate return of goods does not purge the offence
R v COX (possession)
Possession = physical element (physical custody)
and mental element (knowledge and intention)
R v MAIHI
Nexus between the act of stealing and a threat of violence
R v BROUGHTON
Threat of violence is the manifestation of intention to inflict violence. Threat may be direct or veiled and by words or conduct
R v JOYCE (joint)
Crown establish 2 or more persons physically present at time of robbery or violence
R v GALEY
2 or more persons common intention to use combined force in committing crime
R v FORREST & FORREST
Prosecution must adduce the best evidence to prove age
R v WELLS
Robbery - harm to anyone
No requirement the harm inflicted need be on on victim but includes person preventing escape too
R v PACHOLKO
Conduct of accused to be assessed not the strength of victims will
R v WILSON
Tenancy = interest in property
R v WELLARD
Essence of kidnapping = deprivation of liberty and taking away from where victim wants to be
R v CROSSAN (kidnap)
Taking away and detaining are seperate distinct offences “different”.
1st = taking victim away
2nd = detaining her
R v PRYCE
Detaining = keep in confinement or custody
R v COX (sex and kidnapping)
Consent must be “full, free, voluntary and informed, freely/voluntarily given by person in position to form rational judgement
R v MOHI
Abduction committed at time of taking away with necessary intent
R v STRAWBRIDGE
Presumed guilty knowledge, crown not need to prove unless defence raised accused honestly believed innocent act
R v EMERALI
Useable quantity - Possession not minute and useless residue
SAXTON v POLICE
Import = bring in from foreign country
R v HANCOX (drugs)
Importation exists from time goods enter NZ until they available to the consignee or addressee
R v RUA
Creation of controlled drugs by process changing original substance into controlled drug
R V DURING
Offer = intimation they ready on request to supply drugs to person
R v BROWN
Intent the intimation is understood as genuine
HAYES v R
Pecuniary advantage = Anything that enhances accused’s financial position
Valuable consideration = anything capable of being so, in short money or moneys worth
Unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one. Attempt relates to use not to obtaining a pecuniary advantage
R v MISIC
Document is Thing provides evidence/info/record
R v MORLEY (deception)
Intention to deceive requires deception in order to deceive affected party and intent exists at that time
R v LOVE
Deliberate failure to disclose material by a person who has a duty to disclose
MULCAHY v R
Conspiracy consists of intention 2 or more to agree to do an unlawful act and when those 2 agree to carry it out the plot is an act in itself
R v WILCOX
Attempts
Defendant must have begun to perpetrate the crime
R v HARPUR
Attempts
Full evaluation of conduct of accused time place and circumstance less focus on abstract tests of preparation and proximity
R v BRIGGS
Knowledge may be inferred from wilful blindness or dileberate absence of inquiries to the truth
R v PEKEPO
PEKEPO = pew pew intent
(Intent to shoot victim)
Reckless discharge of firearm towards passerby insufficient. Intent to shoot person must be established
POLICE v PARKER
Peter Parker- any manna (manner)
(Use in any manner whatever)
Using in any manner think of short of shooting weapon. Presenting gun is equivalent or the same thing
R v KELT
Kelt - on ya belt
(Firearm with him)
With hun requires close physics link and a degree of immediate control over the weapon
TULI v POLICE
TULI - to do prima facie
Circumstances sufficiently show an intent in absence evidence to the contrary
R v KOROHEKE
Genitalia
Comprises the reproduction organs, interior and exterior, includes vulva/labia both interior and exterior at the opening of vagina
R v GUTUAMA
Gucci shoes of accused
The objective test - crown must prove no reasonable person in shoes of accused could have thought complainant was consenting
R v COURT
Caught being indecent by right ppl
Indecency= conduct that right thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of the complainant
R v LEESON
Indecency
An assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency
