Case Law Flashcards
Cameron V R ?
Cameron v R Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised 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 Archer?
R v Archer [2009] NZCA 543
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value.
R v Morley
R v Morley [2009] NZCA 618
“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the [offence] has been diminished or impaired.”
R v Harpur?
“[The Court may] have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops …
the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its entirety.
Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.”
R v Wilson
The Court of Appeal ruled that he could not be convicted of arson as his tenancy of the property was an interest in that property, and therefore provided him with a defence.
R v Hallam
In Hallam16 the Court held that “On a charge of knowingly having possession of an explosive substance, it must be proved that the offender knowingly had the substance in his possession and also that he knew it to be an explosive substance.”
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 Tipple
Court suggested as a general rule “recklessness” is to be given the subjective meaning. The concept is subjective in that it requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.
