Case Law Background information Flashcards
R V Taisalika background
In R v Taisalika3, the defendant crashed a party and in an unprovoked attack struck another party-goer on the side of the head with a glass. The glass shattered, causing a serious gash to the victim’s temple and multiple cuts to his face.
R v Waters background
In Waters9, despite a prolonged violent assault, the only medical evidence of harm to the victim was a bleeding nose, which was held to be an “injury” rather than a wound in that particular case.
R v Rapana and Murray background
In R v Rapana and Murray11 the defendants forcibly held down their victim and tattooed red marks on his face, using a needle and red ink from a broken pen. The marks faded over time and had disappeared by the time of trial.
R v Donovan background
In R v Donovan13 a man was charged with caning a 17-year-old girl for the purposes of his own sexual gratification. The doctor examining the girl’s body found marks consistent with “a fairly severe beating”.
Cameron v R background
The Supreme Court in Cameron v R15. The defendants were charged with dealing in a “controlled drug analogue”, a Class C controlled drug, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The jury found the substance was substantially similar to a Class B controlled drug, meeting the threshold for a “controlled drug analogue”. Recklessness is a test based on the defendant’s appreciation of the risk of the offence and their decision to run that risk anyway.
R v Wati background
In R v Wati18 the defendant was present during a riot in which Police officers were attacked and a Police vehicle set on fire. Wati fled the scene, but was caught by a constable, who he kicked and punched in an attempt to avoid arrest. He was charged with “riot” and “aggravated assault” on the constable.
Wati was acquitted on the riot charge and it was held that he therefore “could not be guilty upon the count of assault with the aggravating feature of avoiding arrest for Riot”. He was, however, convicted of common assault.
R v Swain background
In R v Swain23 the defendant, when confronted by a constable, removed a sawn-off shotgun from a bag, saying “Don’t be stupid”, causing the officer to fear for his safety. Although he didn’t point the gun at the officer, it was held that his actions in taking the shotgun out of the bag in plain view of the constable amounted to the “use” of the firearm in an intimidating and threatening manner against him.
Fisher v R background
In Fisher v R26 the defendant had discharged a firearm several times in a building, but refused to come out when called on by the AOS. He fired a further shot from within the building, although there was insufficient evidence that it was directed at Police.
While it was accepted that the defendant in this matter must have known he had committed crimes for which he was liable to arrest, there was no evidence of an attempt to arrest or detain him at the time he fired the shot.
R v Skivington background
In R v Skivington31 the defendant went to the office where he and his wife worked and demanded their wage packets two days earlier than they were due. He threatened one of the managers and forced the man at knife point to retrieve the cash from the safe. His conviction for “robbery with aggravation” was quashed on the basis that he genuinely believed he was entitled to the money.
R v Lapier background
In R v Lapier33 a lady had emerged from an opera house and was preparing to step into her carriage when the defendant snatched her gold and diamond earring, tearing it from her ear. Although he had the earring only momentarily and lost it again when it became tangled in the lady’s hair, the Court held that there had been a “taking” sufficient to constitute robbery.
R v Maihi background
In R v Maihi38 the complainant wore a leather jacket to a Hamilton hotel. The defendant kept on saying he liked it. Feeling under pressure the complainant handed it to the defendant who tried it on. Sometime later the complainant and his friend asked for it back. The defendant offered to fight them for it which they declined. The defendant and his group left the hotel with the jacket.
On the evidence the Crown accepted that the defendant had not committed a theft by taking. It submitted, and the trial Judge accepted, that there was evidence of theft by conversion accompanied by a threat of violence satisfying the requirements of s 234
Peneha v Police background
In Peneha v Police40 the defendant grabbed a woman’s handbag and attempted to run off with it. When the woman tried to retain her bag, her hand was twisted and pulled backwards to the point where it hurt and she was forced to let go. The Court held that “though at the lower end of the scale for robbery” this was sufficient to constitute violence for the purposes of that charge.
R v Joyce background
In R v Joyce50 the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery by being “together with” two co-offenders during a robbery. One of the co-offenders had gone into a service station and robbed the attendant, while Joyce and another were “lurking in the neighbourhood” but taking no physical part in the robbery.
The Court of Appeal quashed Joyce’s conviction, stating that s235(b) is “intended to provide for cases where the victim was confronted by two or more persons acting in concert”.
R v Galey background
In R v Galey51 a young woman lured a Japanese seaman out of a bar on the pretence that she would have sex with him for money. Once outside he was attacked by a male who kicked him, knocked him to the ground and stole his cash. The male’s associate, Galey, kicked the man once in the feet, but had no further participation in the assault or the theft.
The Court of Appeal quashed Galey’s conviction for aggravated robbery on the basis that the charge was not aimed at those who were present at the scene only to act as a look out or to give encouragement.
The Court did, however, consider that Galey’s actions in encouraging his associate made him liable as a party to the robbery, and substituted a conviction under section 234.
R v Galey background
In R v Galey51 a young woman lured a Japanese seaman out of a bar on the pretence that she would have sex with him for money. Once outside he was attacked by a male who kicked him, knocked him to the ground and stole his cash. The male’s associate, Galey, kicked the man once in the feet, but had no further participation in the assault or the theft.
The Court of Appeal quashed Galey’s conviction for aggravated robbery on the basis that the charge was not aimed at those who were present at the scene only to act as a look out or to give encouragement.
The Court did, however, consider that Galey’s actions in encouraging his associate made him liable as a party to the robbery, and substituted a conviction under section 234.
