Case Law Flashcards
Case Law: Wounds
R v WATERS
“A breaking of the skin would commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound.
The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external.
But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal.
Case Law: Has with him (firearm)
R v KELT
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”.
Case Law: Claim of right as a defence to Robbery
R v SKIVINGTON
“Larceny [or theft] is an ingredient of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny,
then it negatives one of the ingredients in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.
Case Law: Accompanied by
R v MAIHI
“It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing… and a threat of violence.
Both must be present”. However the term “does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous…”
Case Law: Physical proximity
R v JOYCE
“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred”.
Case Law: Joint enterprise
R v GALEY
“Being together” in the context of S235(b) 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”.
Case Law: Proof of age
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”.
Case Law: Has with him
R v CUGULLERE
The words “has with him…” must mean “knowingly has with him…”
Case Law: Not limited to immediate harm (HIV)
R v MWAI
Expert medical evidence that HIV follows “a steady relentless progression” leading to AIDS and then inevitably to death was sufficient to establish that the defendant had caused GBH.
Case Law: Reckless disregard for the safety of others
R v MOWATT
It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury.” Foresight “ that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result” is all that is required.
Case Law: Intent to resist lawful arrest or detention
FISHER v R
It is necessary in order to establish a charge under S198A(2) for the Crown to prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him because otherwise the element of mens rea of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.
Blackmail - Statutory Defence S237(2) CA 1961
R v MARSHALL
An accused can avoid liability where he or she believes in an entitlement to obtain the benefit or to cause the loss, and,
objectively viewed, the threat is a reasonable and proper means for bringing about that obtaining or that causing of the loss.
It will be for the jury to determine whether the means were reasonable and proper.
R v Lapier - Robbery
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentarily.
Ideal Possession (Actual) Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
The term possession must be given a sensible and reasonable meaning in its context. Ideally, a possessor of a thing has:
- Complete physical control over it
- Knowledge of its existence, its situation and its qualities.
