Case Law - Serious Assaults

Question 1

R v Taisalika

Answer 1

The nature of the blow and the gash it produced on the complainants head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

(Serious assault. Proving intent)

Question 2

DPP v Smith

Answer 2

Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

(Serious assault and agg rob. GBH)

Question 3

R v Waters

Answer 3

A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will normally be evidence by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of the 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.

(Serious assault. Wounds)

Question 4

R v Rapana and Murray

Answer 4

The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage

(Serious assault. Disfigures)

Question 5

R v Donovan

Answer 5

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

(Serious assault. Actual bodily harm)

Question 6

R v Harney

Answer 6

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 risk.

Question 7

R v Tihi

Answer 7

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”

(Serious assault, aggravated wounding)

Question 8

R v Wati

Answer 8

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.

(Serious assault, aggravated wounding)

Question 9

R v Pekepo

Answer 9

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

(Serious assault, discharging firearm)

Question 10

R v Swain

Answer 10

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 s198A Crimes Act 1961

(Using a firearm against enforcement officer)

Question 11

Fisher v R

Answer 11

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.

(Using a firearm against law enforcement officer)