Case Law Flashcards
R V Taisalika
Nature of the blow and gash produced, points strongly to the intent
R V Hunt
the defendant intended to stab someone but only caused a superficial cut to wrist.
Found guilty of wounding as intent was to cause GBH. Question is not wound produced, but wound intended.
DPP V SMITH
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.
R v Waters
Wound involves breaking of the skin causing flow of blood, may be internal or external.
R v Scott and Lewis
Charged with wounds intent injure after punching victim in head causing blood clot on brain.
R V RAPANA AND MURRAY
Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.
R V DONOVAN
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 be more than transitory or trifling.
CAMERON V R
Recklessness is established if:
A) The defendant recognized that there was a real possibility that
The proscribed circumstances existed
That the defendants actions would bring about the proscribed result
B) Having regard to the risk, those actions were unreasonable.
R v Tipple
Recklessness is to be given the subjective meaning which requires that the accused had a conscious appreciation of the risk, and made a deliberate decision to ‘run the risk’
R v Collister
Intent can be inferred through:
Offenders actions and words before during and after
Surrounding circumstances
Nature of the act itself
R V TIHI
In addition to specified intent in a, b, c it must be shown defendant intended to cause the specified harm or foresaw his action undertaken were likely to expose others to the risk.
R V WATI
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 facilitate.
Wati assaulted the officer whilst fleeing a riot. Found not guilty of riot therefore not guilty of aggravated assault.
R v STURM
To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which may hinder an intended crime.
Sturm convicted for administring drugs to people to violate them.
Stupefy does not only describe when rendered senseless or unconscious but administration of drugs has led to disinhibition and stimulated uncharacteristic behaviour.
R v Claridge
Defendant attempted to hit Prison Officer with iron bar while escaping. PO blocked blow but fell from wall breaking ankle.
Held that he was liable under 191(1)(c)
R V Crossan (In relation to S191 Agg Assaults/Wounding)
Incapable of resistance includes powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity
R V PEKEPO
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.
R v SWAIN
To deliberately or purposely remove a shotgun from a bag after being confronted by or called upon by a constable amounts to use under 198A
Police v Parker
Use in any manner whatsoever to contemplate a situation short of actually firing and would include presenting it.
Loaded shotgun aimed at constable, struggle where weapon has been thrown to ground.
FISHER V R
It is necessary to establish a charge under 198A(2) for the crown to prove the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain them.
Because otherwise the mens rea of intending to resist lawful arrest cannot be established.
R V COX
Possession must have mental and physical element.
- Actual physical custody over the item
- Potential to have the item in their control
- Mental knowing that the person possess the item and an intention to possess the item
TULI V POLICE
Prima facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
R V SKIVINGTON
Theft is an element of robbery and if the honest belief that there is a claim of right to the property this removes an element and therefore cannot complete the offence.
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken even if possession only momentarily
R V MAIHI
It is implicit in accompanying that there must be a nexus between the act of stealing and threat of violence.
Does Not require it to be contemporaneous at the time.
R V MITCHELL
May be occasions where property is handed over as result of threats previously made but still operating on mind.
PENEHA V POLICE
The actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.
R v Butler
man locking up store and a large balaclava man turned up at night, this was held to be violence due to circumstances.
If prosecution is to rely on violent circumstances it should be established that the defendant saw or foresaw his conduct would be perceived as a threat.
Conduct of the defendant is relevant.
R v PACHOLKO
the actual presence or absence of fear on part of the complainant is not the yardstick, it is about the conduct of the accused not the strength of nerves of the complainant.
R V NEWELL
Defendant was confronted by a security guard after stealing from the supermarket he slashed a knife at him in the parking lot. Quashed robbery as there was no violence used to extort property as theft was completed when he got to the carpark.
R V JOYCE
crown must establish two people were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or assault occurred.
R v GALEY
Being together in the context of 235(b) requires two or more persons having a common intention to use their combined force either in any event or as circumstance might require directly in the perpetration of the crime.
R V BENTHAM
Any “thing” Does not include a part of the persons body
R V WELLARD
The offence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty combined with taking of the victim away from the place they want to be.
R V CROSSAN kidnaps
Taking away and detaining are separate and distinct offences, first of taking away and second for detaining. Complete when person taken away against their will second when detained her against her will.
R v Pryce
Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody. Contrasted to the passive concept of harboring or mere failure to hand over.
BOYD V R
Women was robbed and a robber stood next to her holding knife for 15 minutes, it was held that this was detained as he had taken over control and hindered and restrained her from leaving. In this case 10 - 15 minutes was sufficient.
R V COX (Consent)
CONSENT must be full, voluntary, free and informed given by someone in a position to form a rational judgement.
R V ISHERWOOD
consent may be present even if some degree of irrationality.
R V MOHI
Offence of kidnapping/abduction complete at time of taking away/detention as long as accompanied by necessary intent.
R V WAAKA
Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commences without the intent to have intercourse but that intent is formed during the taking away that is sufficient for the purpose of the section.
R V M
Crown must prove that the accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he or she knows that the complainant was not consenting.
R v forrest and forrest
crown must produce best evidence of age.
