Case law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent Application: intent (serious assaults)
R v Collister
( Big ‘C’ - Circumstantial)
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 Application: intent
DPP v Smith
(3 DPP’s v 1 Smith in a fight = GBH to Smith)
‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grevious’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’ Application: GBH
R v Waters
(Water flows like blood from a wound)
A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood’. May be internal or external. Application: wound
R v Rapana and Murray
(Think of two guys named Rapana and Murray dipping somone’s hand into hot oil - it is temporarily disfigured but able to be fixed with skin grafts)
Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
Application: disfigures
R v McArthur
(Mc ARRRRRRRRR Fuck that hurt when he smashed my kneecaps!!!)
(Application: injures)
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but it must be more than transitory and trifling.
Application: injures
Cameron v R
(Shane Cameron the ex-boxer hiffing a full can of baked beans recklessly into a crowd - Recklessness)
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 Application: recklessness
R v Tipple
(I’m going to ‘Tip all’ these stones off the bridge and onto the cars below - Recklessness)
(Application: recklessness)
Recklessness 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”.
Application: recklessness
R v Wati
(‘WAT’ the hell is ‘I’ doing with that knife!?!)
(Application: aggravated wounding)
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
Application: aggravated wounding
R v Tihi
(Tee hee hee - remember the tent skit in Austin Powers - two ‘X’ in tents - aggravated wounding)
(Application: aggravated wounding)
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a) - (c), it must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.
Application: aggravated wounding
R v Sturm
(Sturm - Sperm - Rape: man threatens a woman with a gun to make her stop struggling and submit to being raped, whether or not he rapes her. If he commits rape - separate charge).
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 might hinder an intended crime Application: stupefy
R v Crossan
(They CROSS over)
(Application: incapable of resistance)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.
Application: incapable of resistance
R v Wellard
(It’s ‘well hard’ to carry a person away)
(Application: kidnapping (takes away)
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”.
Application: kidnapping (takes away)
R v Pryce (Pryce - price - $$$ = ransom)
(Application: kidnapping (detains)
Detaining is an active concept meaning to “keep in confinement or custody”. This is to be contrasted with the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.
Application: kidnapping (detains)
R v Mohi
(Mohi - Mohair - from an Angoran goat - intends to shave the goat for the mohair at the time of taking him away)
The offence is committed at the time of the taking away, so long as there is, at that moment, the necessary intent. It has never been regarded as necessary … that the Crown should show the intent was carried out. Application: kidnapping/abduction - offence complete
R v Chartrand
(He sharted and ran when he was busted for abduction)
(Application: abduction (young person)
“Whether the defendant may have had an innocent motive, or intended to interfere with possession for a very short time is beside the point”.
Application: abduction (young person)
R v Cox
(Coxen in a rowing 8 - think of a coxen in a rowing 8 - steroids for the team are in the back but he knows where they are - they’re under his control and he has an intention to dish them out to the team before the race)
Possession involves two … elements.
The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control.
The second, often described as 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.
Application: possession
R v Misic
(Misic = Misc. - the ‘misc’ folder on our computers with all our ‘miscellaneous’ documents on them)
Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record Application: document
AP Simester and WJ Brookbanks
Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”. The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot ‘know’ something that is false. Application: guilty knowledge
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaay! Don’t USE my document!)
(Application: uses a document (attempts)
An unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one. An unsuccessful use must not be equated conceptually with an attempted one. The concept of attempt relates to use - not to the ultimate obtaining of a pecuniary advantage, which is not a necessary ingredient of the offence. Because the use does not have to be successful it may be difficult to draw a clear line between use and attempted use.
Application: uses a document (attempts)
R v Cara
(Cara sounds like a really good value for $ car eg, Nissan Cara)
(Application: service)
Service is limited to financial or economic value, and excludes privileges or benefits.
Application: service