Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika (Assaults)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
DPP v Smith (Assaults)
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.
R v Waters (Assaults)
A wound is commonly characterized by the breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. There are cases where the bleeding may be internal.
R v Rapana and Murray (Assaults)
The word ‘disfigure’ covers not only permanent but also temporary damage.
R v Donovan (Assaults)
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury interfering with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent, but must be more than merely transitory or trifling.
Cameron v R (All)
Recklessness is established if:
- the defendant recognized the real possibility that his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or the proscribed circumstances existed; and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
R v Tihi - two fold intent (Assaults)
In addition to the intents outlines in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), it must be shown that the offender either meant to cause the specified harm, or foresaw that his actions were likely to expose other to the risk of suffering it.
R v Wati (Assaults)
Wati = What he do?
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 intents to avoid or facilitate.
R v Pekepo - s198(1)(a) (Firearms)
Pekapo= peek a boo= intention to shoot
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 the person must be established.
R v Swain (Firearms)
Swain = sawn = sawn off shotgun
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 use of that firearm within the meaning of s198A CA 1961
Simester and Brookbanks - knowledge the victim is an office
Knowing means correctly believing, the defendant can believe something wrongly but cannot know something that is false.
Fisher v R (Firearms)
Fisher = fish = catch = trying to catch
In order to establish a charge under section 198A(2) the crown must prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him otherwise the element of men’s rea cannot be established.
R v Skivington (Robbery)
Skiving thief
Theft is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, then it negatives one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.
R v Lapier (Robbery)
Lapier = lap = complete
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox (Robbery)
Possession - Involves two elements
Physical element - actual or potential physical custody or control
Mental element - combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge of possession and an intention to exercise possession
R v Maihi (Robbery)
There must be a nexus between the act of stealing and threat of violence, however they need not be contemporaneous.
Peneha v Police (Robbery)
Peneha = pen = jab with a pen = ow
It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom, or amount to forcible powerful or violent action producing an effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.
R v Joyce (Agg Robb 235(b))
Joyce = joy = happy to be together
The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred .
R v Galey (Agg Robb 235b)
“Being together” 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.
R v Wellard (Kidnapping)
The essence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place the victim wants to be”
R v Crossan (Abduction/Kidnapping)
Taking away and detains are seperate and distinct offences. The first offence is complete at the time of the taking away, then the conduct of detaining against their will constitutes a new and different offence.
R v Pryce (Abduction/Kidnapping)
Pryce=ice=kept in the freezer
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 Cox (Abduction/Kidnapping)
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 Mohi (Abduction/Kidnapping)
Mohi = Mahi = work not done = not carried out
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.
R v Waaka (Abduction/Kidnapping)
Waaka = boat = journey = during
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, then that is sufficient for the purposes of the section.
R v M (Abduction/Kidnapping)
Intent and 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 Forrest & Forrest (Abduction of a YP)
The best evidence possible in the circumstance should be adduced by the prosecution as proof of the victims age.
