Case Law Flashcards
R V Taisalika
R v Taisalika 25/6/93, CA94/93
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
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
Agg Rob
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
R v Waters
R v Waters [1979] 1 NZLR 375
“A wound is the breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. May be internal or external”
R v Rapana and Murray
R v Rapana and Murray (1988) 3 CRNZ 256
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
R v Donovan
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 (CA)
‘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.
Cameron v R
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that: (i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or (ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
R v Tihi
R v Tihi (1989) 4 CRNZ 289 (CA)
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 [1985] NZLR 236, (1984) 1 CRNZ 380 (CA)
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 [1989] 2 NZLR 229
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 (1992) 8 CRNZ 657
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 (1988) 3 CRNZ 250
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 [1967] 1 All ER 483
“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
R v Lapier (1784) 1 Leach 320
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox (possession)
R v Cox [1990] 2 NZLR 275
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
R v Maihi [1993] 2 NZLR 139
“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 …”
