Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

Intent (serious assault)

A

R v Taisalika

The nature of the blow and gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of necessary intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Intent

A

R v Collister

Circumstantial evidence can infer the offender’s intent

The offenders’ words and actions before, during and after the event

The surrounding circumstances

The nature of the act itself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

GBH

A

DPP v Smith

Bodily harm is self-explanatory. Grevious means no more or no less than really serious.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Wound

A

R v Water

Breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. Internal or external.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Disfigure

A

R v Rapana and Murray

Disfigures covers permanent damage as well as temporary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Injures

A

R v McArthur

Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the comfort or health of the victim.

Need not be permanent but must be more than transitory or trifling.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Recklessness 1

A

Cameron v R

Established if the defendant recognized there is a real possibility that

his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result

the proscribed circumstances existed

In regard to that risk their actions were unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Recklessness 2

A

R v Tipple

The defendant must have a conscious appreciation of the risk and make a deliberate decision to run the risk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Aggravated Wounding 1

A

R v Wati

Proof of the commission or attempted commission by the person committing the assault or the person they are faciliating the flight of

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Aggravated Wounding 2

A

R v Tihi

Along with the intent a-c, the defendant must mean to cause the harm or know that it was a likely outcome of their actions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Stupefy

A

R v Sturm

Dull senses or facilities to hinder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Incapable of resistance

A

R v Crossan

Includes powerless of the will, not just physical.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Robbery Complete

A

R v Lapier

Robbery complete instant property is taken.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Claim of right defence

A

R v Skivington

Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Robbery (Nexus)

A

R v Maihi

there must be a nexus (connection) between the act of stealing and threat of violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Violence (Robbery)

A

Peneha v Police

Actions of the defendant must be violent action, bodily injury or discomfort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Threat of Violence

A

R v Broughton

Focus on the conduct of the defendant rather than nerves of the victim

18
Q

Together with 1

A

R v Joyce

At least two or more persons physically present

19
Q

Together With 2

A

two or more, common intention to use combined force

20
Q

Offensive Weapon

A

Item must be a thing, can’t be finger gun etc

21
Q

Case law associated with Agg rob

A

R v Maihi, Peneha v Police, R v Broughton, R v Lapier, R v Skivington, R v Joyce, R v Galey, R v Bentham

22
Q

Case law associated with Wounds

A

R v Taisalika, R v Collister, R v Tipple, Cameron v R, R v Waters, R v Rapana and Smith, R v McArthur

23
Q

Case law associated with Agg wounds

A

R v Wati, R v Tihi, R v Sturm, R v Crossan

24
Q

Case law associated with agg rob

A

R v Maihi, Peneha v Police, R v Broughton, R v Joyce, R v Galey, R v Bentham

25
Q

Cause loss

A

R v Morley

measured by position before the act

26
Q

Damage to property

A

R v Archer

Permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment to use or value

27
Q

R v Wilson

A

Tenancy is considered interest

28
Q

Case law associated with Arson

A

R v Wilson, R v Morley, R v Archer

29
Q

Case law associated with abduction and kidnapping

A

R v Crossan, R v Wellard, R v Mohi, R v Pryce, R v Cox

30
Q

Kidnapping/Abduction offence complete

A

R v Mohi

committed at the time of taking away so long as in that moment there is the necessary intent

31
Q

Consent

A

R v Cox

Consent must be full, voluntary, informed and free, freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement

32
Q

Proving Age

A

R v Forrest and Forrest

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age

33
Q

Kidnapping (takes away)

A

R v Wellard

deprivation of liberty coupled with carrying away from a place the victim wants to be

34
Q

Kidnapping (detains)

A

keep in confinement or custody

35
Q

Possession

A

R v Cox

two elements

physical - actual or potential custody or control

mental - knowledge and intention

36
Q

Guilty Knowledge

A

R v Strawbridge

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, knowledge on behalf of the accused is presumed.

37
Q

Usable quantity

A

possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute or useless residue of the substance

38
Q

Manufacturing/Producing

A

R v Rua

some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug

39
Q

Offer to supply

A

R v During

intimation (suggestion) that the person charged is ready on request, to supply to another person

40
Q

Offer to supply

A

R v Brown

four ways to offer to supply

drugs on hand

drugs that will be procured at a later date

mistakenly believes he can supply

deceitfully, knowing he will not supply

41
Q

Name the case law regarding to offering to supply drugs

A

R v During and R v Brown

42
Q

What case law is required in every drug dealing offence?

A

R v Strawbridge and Police v Emerali