Case Law Flashcards
Case Law: Intent
R v Collister
Intent can be inferred by actions and words, said and made, before, during or after the event, the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the act itself
Case Law: Recklessly
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) The proscribed circumstances existed and
(b) Having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable
Case Law: Recklessness part 2
R v Tipple
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk and a deliberate decision to run the risk.
Case Law: Damage by fire
R v Archer
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment to its use or value.
Case Law: Interest
R v Wilson
The Defendant was attempting to manufacture meth at his rented property when clan lab exploded and burned down.
Court of appeal held that he could not be convicted of arson as his tenancy was an interest in that property, and therefore provided him with a defence.
Drug charge of permitting premises is more appropriate.
Case law: Loss
R v Morley
Loss is assessed by the extent to which the complainants position prior to the offence has been diminished or impaired
Case Law: Attempts
R v Harpur
An attempt includes an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.
Case Law: Sufficiently Proximate
Police v Wylie
Two men came to an address to buy drugs from a police officer.
Court of appeal analyzed the Defendants actions and found:
- Phone the address in advance and enquired about the drugs
- Driven to the house without delay
- Taken a substantial sum of cash in with them
- Confirmed verbally that they wanted coke
- Discussed price
- Asked to see capsules
Two guilty of attempting to procure cocaine.
Case Law: Sufficiently Proximate (Part 2)
R v Harpur
The Court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops.
The defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety.
Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.
Case Law: Knowledge
R v Hallam
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
