Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
In:
Wounding with Intent.
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainants head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
DPP v Smith
In:
Wounding with Intent.
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
R v Waters
In: Wounding with Intent.
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 Rapana and Murray
In:
Wounding with Intent.
The word ‘disfigure’covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
R v Donovan
In:
Injuring with Intent to cause GBH
‘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
In:
Wounding with intent S188(2)
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
R v Tihi
In:
Aggravated Wounding or Injury
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraph (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
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
In:
Discharging Firearm or Doing Dangerous Act with Intent.
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
In:
Using any Firearm against Law Enforcement officer (1).
To deliberately or purposely remove a swan-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 S198A CA1961.
Fisher v R
In:
Using any Firearm against Law Enforcement officer (2).
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
In:
Robbery
Larceny [or theft] is an element 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
In:
Robbery
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox
Robbery
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 substance is in his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.
R v Maihi
In:
Robbery
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”.
