Caselaw

Question 1

Cameron v R

Answer 1

RECKLESSNESS

recklessness is est if
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that his actions would bring about the proscribed result (subjective test)

And/or (b) that the proscribed circumstances existed, and having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable (subjective and objective test)

If there was no social utility to their actions, it’s unreasonable and therefore reckless.

If there was some social utility, it comes down to “Whether a reasonable and prudent person would have taken the risk”

Question 2

R v Archer

Answer 2

DAMAGES BY FIRE OR EXP…

“Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value”

(The defendant was charged with arson for blackening the top of the sink… the court ruled this insufficient evidence of actual damage)

Question 3

R v Harpur

Answer 3

ATTEMPTS

An attempt includes an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime

Question 4

R v Morley

Answer 4

CAUSE LOSS

Loss is assessed to the extent to which the complainants prior to the offence has diminished or impaired

NB it’s not necessary for the victim’s loss to benefit the offender

Question 5

R v Collister

Answer 5

INTENT

Intent can be inferred from the circumstances.

This circumstantial evidence could include
1) the offenders actions before during and after the event
2) the surrounding circumstance
3) the nature of the act itself