CASE LAW Flashcards
Wounding:
What case law applies to intent?
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
What case law applies to GBH?
DPP v SMITH
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
What case law applies to “Wounds”?
R v Waters
“A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound.
The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissue may be internal.”
What case law applies to Disfigurement?
R v Rapana and Murray
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
What case law deals with ‘Bodily harm’?
R v Donnovan
‘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 merely transitory and trifling.
What case law refers to Recklessness?
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his 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.
For aggravated wounding, what case law speaks about the necessity to prove the commission or attempted commission of an imprisonable offence?
R v Wati
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.
What case law deals with s198(1)(a) discharging a firearm at someone to do GBH?
R v Pekepo
A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
What case law refers to ‘Use of a firearm’ in respect of s198A?
R v Swain
To deliberately or purposely remove a sawn-off shot gun from a bag after being confronted by or called upon by a police constable amounts to a use of that forearm within the meaning of s198A Crimes Act 1961.
Uses any Firearm Against Law Enforcement, CA61 s198A(2).
What case law relates to knowing someone was attempting to arrest him?
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.
s191
What case law found that a threat of violence coupled with brandishing the weapon was sufficient to render the victim incapable.
R v Crossan
Robbery:
What case law involves a defence?
R v Skivington
“Larceny [or theft] is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man
has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the elements
in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”
Robbery:
What case law applies to a thief taking only brief possession of the property stolen?
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the
thief is only momentary.
What case law deals with possession?
R v Cox
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.
Robbery:
What case law points to what the crown have to prove?
R v Maihi
“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 …”
Robbery:
Case law - violence
Peneha v Police
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”.
Case law for GBH?
DPP v Smith
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less
than “really serious”.
Aggravated Robbery/Assault with Intent to Rob:
What case law deals instructs the Crown what must be established when it comes to the meaning of “being together with”?
R v Joyce
“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at
the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”
Aggravated Robbery/Assault with Intent to Rob:
What case law deals with the intent associated with the term “being together with”?
R v Galey
“Being together” in the context of s235(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 the perpetration of the crime.”
Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for “Taking away”?
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”.
Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for determining “Taking” and “Detaining”?
R v Crossan
Taking away and detaining are “separate and distinct offences. The first consists
of taking [the victim] away; the second of detaining her. The first offence was
complete when the prisoner took the woman away against her will. Then, having
taken her away, he detained her against her will, and his conduct in detaining her
constituted a new and different offence.”
Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for “Detaining”?
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.
Case law for “Consent”?
R v Cox
Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed … freely and voluntarily given
by a person in a position to form a rational judgment.”
Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law that looks at the period of “Intent” in relation to “Taking or Detaining”?
Mohi
The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or a taking
accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was
carried out.
