Case law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
R v Rapana and Murray
R v Rapana and Murray
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
DPP v Smith
DPP v Smith
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
R v Waters
R v Waters
“A breaking of the skin would be 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.”
R v Donovan
R v Donovan
‘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.
R v Harney
R v Harney
“Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.”
R v Tihi
R v Tihi
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), “it must be shown that the offender either 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”.
R v Wati
R v Wati
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.
R v Pekepo
R v Pekepo
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.
R v Swain
R v Swain
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 a use of that firearm within the meaning of s 198A Crimes Act 1961.
Fisher v R
Fisher v R
It is necessary in order to establish a charge under section 198A(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.
R v Skivington
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 elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”
R v Lapier
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox
R v Cox
Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed … freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgment.”
R v Maihi
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 …”
