Case Law Flashcards
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.
DPP v SMITH
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious.”
R v WATERS
The breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will often be evidences 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 RAPANA & MURRAY
The word “disfigure” covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.
R v DONOVAN
“Bodily harm”… includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health of comfort of the victim… it need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, b more than merely transitory or trifling.
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
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 forsaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.
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 be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
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 means of S198A of the Crimes Act 1961.
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
Larceny (or theft) is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a deence 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
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only temporary.
R v COX
Possession involves two elements. The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substances is in his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.
R v MAIHI
It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus between the act of stealing and the 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.
PENEHA v Police
It is sufficient that the actions of the Defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.
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.
R v GALEY
‘Being together’ in the context of 235(b) involves two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any case or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.
R v WELLARD
The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the Victim wants to be.
R v CROSSAN
Taking away and detaining are separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking the victim away; the second of detaining her. The first offence was complete when the prisoner took the woman away against her will. Then, having taken her away, he detained her against her will, and his conduct in detaining her constituted a new and different offence.
R v PRYCE
Detaining is an active conept meaning to keep in confinement or custody. This is to be contrasted to the passive concept of harbouring or mere 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 a rational judgement.
R v MOHI
The offence is complete once there has been a perid of detention or a taking accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out.
R v WAAKA
Intent my be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commences without the intent to have intercourse, but that intent is formed during the taking away, then that is sufficient for the purposes of the section.
R v M
The Crown must prove that the accused intended to take away of detain the Complainant and that he or she knew that the Complainant was not consenting.
R v FORREST and FORREST
The best possible evidence in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the Victim’s age.
R v STURM
Stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person, which really serious interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime.
R v CROSSAN
“Incapable of resistance” includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity. The term “violent means” is not limited to phyical violence and may include threats of violence, depending on the circumstances.
