Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

DDC 2022 > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

R v MANE

A

Application: AATF

To be considered an accessory, the acts done must be after the offence is complete

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

R v CROOKS

A

Application: AATF

Actual knowledge and no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence

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

R v MORLEY

A

Loss (Deception case)

Loss assessed by extent complainants position prior to offence is diminished/impaired

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

R v ARCHER

A

Property damage (arson case)

Property may be damaged if suffers
Permanent/temporary physics harm or
Permanent/temporary impairment of use or value

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

CAMERON v R

A

Recklessness

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v TIPPLE

A

Conscious appreciation of risk and a deliberate decision to run the risk

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

R v COLLISTER

A

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

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

R v TAISALIKA

A

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

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

R v MCARTHUR

A

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
10
Q

DPP v SMITH

A

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

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

R v WATERS

A

Wound = breaking of the skin evidenced by flow of blood (internal/external)

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

R v TIHI

A

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

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

R v WATI

A

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

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

R v STURM

A

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

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

R v CROSSAN (incapable resistance)

A

Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity

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

R v RAPANA and MURRAY

A

Disfigures covers temporary damage too not just permanent

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

R v SKIVINGTON

A

A honest belief of claim of right is a defence to the theft element of robbery

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

R v LAPIER

A

Complete robbery instant property taken

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

R v PEAT (repeat return)

A

Immediate return of goods does not purge the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v COX (possession)

A

Possession = physical element (physical custody)

and mental element (knowledge and intention)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

R v MAIHI

A

Nexus between the act of stealing and a threat of violence

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

R v BROUGHTON

A

Threat of violence is the manifestation of intention to inflict violence. Threat may be direct or veiled and by words or conduct

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

R v JOYCE (joint)

A

Crown establish 2 or more persons physically present at time of robbery or violence

24
Q

R v GALEY

A

2 or more persons common intention to use combined force in committing crime

25
Q

R v FORREST & FORREST

A

Prosecution must adduce the best evidence to prove age

26
Q

R v WELLS

A

Robbery - harm to anyone

No requirement the harm inflicted need be on on victim but includes person preventing escape too

27
Q

R v PACHOLKO

A

Conduct of accused to be assessed not the strength of victims will

28
Q

R v WILSON

A

Tenancy = interest in property

29
Q

R v WELLARD

A

Essence of kidnapping = deprivation of liberty and taking away from where victim wants to be

30
Q

R v CROSSAN (kidnap)

A

Taking away and detaining are seperate distinct offences “different”.
1st = taking victim away
2nd = detaining her

31
Q

R v PRYCE

A

Detaining = keep in confinement or custody

32
Q

R v COX (sex and kidnapping)

A

Consent must be “full, free, voluntary and informed, freely/voluntarily given by person in position to form rational judgement

33
Q

R v MOHI

A

Abduction committed at time of taking away with necessary intent

34
Q

R v STRAWBRIDGE

A

Presumed guilty knowledge, crown not need to prove unless defence raised accused honestly believed innocent act

35
Q

R v EMERALI

A

Useable quantity - Possession not minute and useless residue

36
Q

SAXTON v POLICE

A

Import = bring in from foreign country

37
Q

R v HANCOX (drugs)

A

Importation exists from time goods enter NZ until they available to the consignee or addressee

38
Q

R v RUA

A

Creation of controlled drugs by process changing original substance into controlled drug

39
Q

R V DURING

A

Offer = intimation they ready on request to supply drugs to person

40
Q

R v BROWN

A

Intent the intimation is understood as genuine

41
Q

HAYES v R

A

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

42
Q

R v MISIC

A

Document is Thing provides evidence/info/record

43
Q

R v MORLEY (deception)

A

Intention to deceive requires deception in order to deceive affected party and intent exists at that time

44
Q

R v LOVE

A

Deliberate failure to disclose material by a person who has a duty to disclose

45
Q

MULCAHY v R

A

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

46
Q

R v WILCOX

A

Attempts

Defendant must have begun to perpetrate the crime

47
Q

R v HARPUR

A

Attempts

Full evaluation of conduct of accused time place and circumstance less focus on abstract tests of preparation and proximity

48
Q

R v BRIGGS

A

Knowledge may be inferred from wilful blindness or dileberate absence of inquiries to the truth

49
Q

R v PEKEPO

A

PEKEPO = pew pew intent
(Intent to shoot victim)

Reckless discharge of firearm towards passerby insufficient. Intent to shoot person must be established

50
Q

POLICE v PARKER

A

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

51
Q

R v KELT

A

Kelt - on ya belt
(Firearm with him)

With hun requires close physics link and a degree of immediate control over the weapon

52
Q

TULI v POLICE

A

TULI - to do prima facie

Circumstances sufficiently show an intent in absence evidence to the contrary

53
Q

R v KOROHEKE

A

Genitalia

Comprises the reproduction organs, interior and exterior, includes vulva/labia both interior and exterior at the opening of vagina

54
Q

R v GUTUAMA

A

Gucci shoes of accused

The objective test - crown must prove no reasonable person in shoes of accused could have thought complainant was consenting

55
Q

R v COURT

A

Caught being indecent by right ppl

Indecency= conduct that right thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of the complainant

56
Q

R v LEESON

A

Indecency

An assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency

DDC 2022 (11 decks)

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