Case law

Question 1

INTENT R v PEKEPO

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

GREVIOUS BODILY HARM DPP v SMITH

Answer 2

“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious.”

Question 3

BODILY HARM R v DONOVAN

Answer 3

“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.

Question 4

USE IN ANY MANNER POLICE v PARKER

Answer 4

“Use in any manner whatever” is to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and to present a rifle too, I think, is equivalent to or means the same thing …

Question 5

HAS WITH HIM R v KELT

Answer 5

Having a firearm “with him” requires “a very close physical link and a degree of immediate control over the weapon by the man alleged to have the firearm with him”.

Question 6

PRIMA FACIE TULI v POLICE

Answer 6

Prima facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary

Question 7

INTENT R v MOHAN

Answer 7

Intent involves “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence…”

Question 8

INTENT R v WAAKA

Answer 8

A “fleeting or passing thought” is not sufficient; there must be a “firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.”

Question 9

RECKLESSLY R v HARNEY

Answer 9

Involves actual foresight by the accused of dangerous consequences that could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.