Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produces on the complainants head would point strongly to the necessary intent
DPP v SMITH
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less that really serious
R v WATERS
Wounding is the breaking of the skin, normally evidenced by the flow of blood. The wound will often be external but may be internal as well
R v RAPANA & MURRAY
The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
R v DONOVON
Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but must be more than trifling or transitory
R v HARNEY
Recklessness means the conciliatory and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In NZ it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen together with a continuation of the course of action regardless of risk
R v TIHI
In addition to one of the specified intents outlined in a) b) or c), it must be shown the offender either intended to cause the specified harm or foresaw that his actions would put others at risk.
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
A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to get hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
R v SWAIN
To deliberately remove a dawn off shotgun from a bag after being confronted by police amounts to use.
R v FISHER
It is necessary for the crown to prove that the defendant knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him, otherwise mens rea cannot be established.
R v SKIVINGTON
Theft is an ingredient of robbery and if the honest belief that a man has claim of right as a defence, it negates the ingredient and the full offence cannot be made out.
R v LAPIER
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary
R v COX (possession)
Possession involves 2 elements
- Physical element - is actual or potential physical custody or control
- Mental element - is a combination of knowledge and intention. Knowledge that the substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise that possession
R v MAIHI
There must be a connection between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. Both must be present but need not be contemporaneous.
R v PENEHA
It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant interfere with personal freedom or amount to a violent action producing a powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.
R v GALEY
Being together involves two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force in perpetration if the crime.
R v JOYCE
The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed.
R v CROSSAN
Taking away & detaining are separate and distinct offences. The first was complete when he took her against her will. Then he detained her constituting a new and different offence.
R v WELLARD
The deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be
R v PRYCE
Detaining means to keep in confinement or custody and is to be contrasted to mere harbouring or failure to hand over
R v COX (consent)
Consent must be full, voluntary, free and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form rational judgement.
R v MOHI
Abduction is complete once there has been a period of detention or a taking accompanied by the necessary intent regardless of whether that intent was carried out.
R v WAAKA
Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away, if at the start there is no intention but hen it is formed during the taking, that is sufficient.
R v M
The crown must prove that the accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he knew that the complainant was not consenting.
R v FOREST & FOREST
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof if the victim’s age.
