Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent
R v Collister
Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include:
The offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
The surrounding circumstances
The nature of the act itself
DPP v Smith
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious
R v Waters
A wound is a breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. May be internal or external
R v Rapana and Murray
Disfigures covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
The defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result, and/or that the proscribed circumstances existed ; and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
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 judgement
R v Donovan (bodily harm)
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 mere transitory and trifling
R v Wati (Agg wounding C)
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 Tihi (agg 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.
R v Crossan (s191, CA 1961)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity
R v Wellard
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
R v Pryce
Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody. This is to be contrasted to the passive concept of harbouring or mere failure to hand over
R v Mohi (taking away intent)
The offence is committed at the time of 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.
R v Waaka
Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commenced 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 (take away consent)
The crown must prove that the accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he or she knew that the complainant was not consenting
R v Pekepo
A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passerby who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
R v Skivington
Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery.
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
Peneha V Police (forcible)
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
R v Broughton (robbery threat of violence)
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
R v Joyce
The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or assault occurred
R v Galey
Being together in the context of 235(b) involves “two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in perpetration of the crime
R v Crossan (kidnapping / abducted)
Taking away and detaining are “separate and distinct offences”
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.
Simester and Brookbanks
Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing” the defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot know something that is false.
Fisher v R
It is necessary in order to establish a charge under section 198A(2) for the Crown to prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him because otherwise the element of mens rea of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.
R v Cox (Possession)
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 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.
R v Maihi (nexus)
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.
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age
R v Peat
The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence
