Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

DDC February 2021 > CASELAW > Flashcards

CASELAW Flashcards

1
Q

R v KOROHEKE *

A

The genitalia comprise the reproduction organs, interior and exterior… they include the vulva [and] the labia, both interior and exterior at the opening of the vagina

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v COX (consent) *

A

Consent must be ‘full voluntary, free and informed… freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v GUTUAMA *

A

Under the objective test the Crown must prove that ‘no reasonable person in the accused’s shoes could have thought that [the complainant] was consenting’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v FORREST and FORREST *

A

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v COURT *

A

Indecency means ‘conduct that right-thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of [the complainant]’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v DUNN

A

Indecency must be judged in light of time, place and circumstances. It must be something more than trifling and be sufficient to ‘warrant the sanction of the law’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v LEESON

A

The definition of an indecent assault is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v NORRIS

A

If a person who is charged with indecent assault is able to establish that they honestly believed that the complainant was consenting, they are entitled to be acquitted even though the grounds of his belief were unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v TAISALIKA *

A

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the necessary intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v COLLISTER

A

Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred can include:

  • the offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event
  • the surrounding circumstances
  • the nature of the act itself
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

DPP v SMITH *

A

‘bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v WATERS *

A

A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood’. May be internal or external.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v RAPANA and MURRAY *

A

Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v MCARTHUR

A

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 be more than transitory and trifling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v CAMERON *

A

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; an
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v TIPPLE

A

Recklessness requires that the offender know of or have a consious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said it requires ‘a deliberate decision to run the risk’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v WATI *

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v TIHI *

A

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs a-c it must be shown that the offender 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

R v STURM (stupefy) *

A

To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that persons mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v CROSSAN (aggravated assault) *

A

Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

R v CROSSAN (kidnapping) *

A

Taking away and detaining are ‘separate and distinct offences’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v WELLARD *

A

The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the ‘deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

R v PRYCE *

A

Detaining is an active concept meaning ‘to keep in confinement or custody’. This is to be contrasted with the passive concept of ‘harbouring’ or mere failure to hand over.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

R v MOHI *

A

The offence is committed at the time of taking away, so long as there is, at that moment, the necessary intent. It has never been regarded as necessary… that the Crown should show the intent was carried out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

R v CHARTRAND *

A

Whether the defendant may have had an innocent motive or intended to interfere with possession for a very short period of time is beside the point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

R v COX (possession) *

A

Possession involves two… elements. the first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or possession. The second, often described as 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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

R v MISIC *

A

Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

SIMESTER AND BROOKBANKS (knowledge) *

A

Knowing means ‘knowing or correctly believing’. The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot ‘know’ something that is false.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

HAYES v R (use) *

A

An unsuccessful use of a document is as much uses as a successful one. An unsuccessful use must not be equated conceptually with an attempted one The concept of attempt relates to use not to the ultimate obtaining of a pecuniary advantage, which is not a necessary ingredient of the offence. Because the use does not have to be successful it may be difficult to draw a clear line between use and attempted use.

30
Q

R v CARA *

A

Service is limited to financial or economic value, and excludes privileges or benefits.

31
Q

HAYES v R (pecuniary advantage) *

A

A pecuniary advantage is anything that enhances the accused’s financial position. It is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage.

32
Q

HAYES v R (valuable consideration) *

A

A valuable consideration is ‘anything capable of being valuable consideration whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind; in short, money or money’s worth.

33
Q

R v LAPIER *

A

Robbery is complete the instant the property is take, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

34
Q

R v SKIVINGTON *

A

Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery.

35
Q

R v PEAT *

A

The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence.

36
Q

R v MAIHI *

A

‘It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus 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…’

37
Q

PENEHA v POLICE *

A

It is sufficient that ‘the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort’

38
Q

R v BROUGHTON *

A

A threat of violence is ‘the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct or a combination of both.

39
Q

R v PACHOLKO *

A

The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of nerves of the person threatened’.

40
Q

R v WELLS

A

There is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within the section.

41
Q

R v JOYCE *

A

The Crown must establish that at lease two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.

42
Q

R v GALEY *

A

‘Being together’ in the context of S235(b) involves ‘two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.

43
Q

R v BENTHAM

A

What is possessed must be under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or finger’s are not a thing.

44
Q

R v DONOVAN

A

Bodily harm includes an injury interfering with health or comfort. It need not be permanent and must be more than transitory and trifling.

45
Q

R v BETTS and RIDLEY *

A

During an offence where no violence is contemplated if the main offender uses violence when carrying out a common aim the secondary offender taking no physical part is not liable for the violence used.

46
Q

R v STURM *

A

It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the intended crime was actually committed.

47
Q

R v KOROHEKE (consent) *

A

Submission by a women because she is frightened of what might happen if she does not give in or cooperate is not true consent.

48
Q

MULCAHY V R *

A

A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect the very plot it an act in itself.

49
Q

R v HARPUR *

A

In assessing the conduct there must be a full evaluation in terms of time, place and circumstance. Independent acts viewed in isolation can be construed as preparatory. Viewed collectively they can take on a different context.

50
Q

R v WILCOX

A

The defendant’s act must be the commencement of the execution of the intended offence – must have begun to perpetrate the crime.

51
Q

R v BETTS and RIDLEY *

A

An offence where no violence is contemplated an the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary party taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence.

52
Q

R v MANE *

A

To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.

53
Q

R v CROOKS *

A

Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.

54
Q

R v BRIGGS *

A

Knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.

55
Q

R v GIBBS *

A

Act or acts done by the accessory must have helped the other person in some way to evade justice.

56
Q

R v MORLEY (deception)

A

An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practiced in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception.

57
Q

SIMESTER and BROOKBANKS (debt)

A

The debt or liability must be legally enforceable. This means that is the contract is void or illegal there will be no offence.

58
Q

MORLEY v R

A

The loss alleged by the victim must have been induced by or caused in reliance upon the deception [also applies to arson]. The deception [or fire] need not be the only operative factor so long as it played a material part in occasioning the loss.

59
Q

R v ARCHER *

A

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

60
Q

R v WILSON

A

Tenancy of a property constitutes and interest in it.

61
Q

SAXTON v POLICE

A

To import includes ‘to introduce or bring in from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country’.

62
Q

R v HANCOX

A

‘Importation’ involves active conduct. It does not cease as the aircraft or vessel enters New Zealand territorial limits. The process of importation exists from the time the goods enter New Zealand until they reach their immediate destination or have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become available to the consignee or addressee.

63
Q

R v STRAWBRIDGE *

A

It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

64
Q

Police v EMERALI *

A

‘…the serious offence of… possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance’.

65
Q

R v RUA

A

The words ‘produce’ and ‘manufacture’ in S6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.

66
Q

R v DONALD

A

Supply includes the distribution of jointly owned property between its owners

67
Q

R v KNOX

A

A person who is in unlawful possession of a controlled drug, which has been deposited for safekeeping, has the intent to supply that drug to another if his intention is to return the drug to the person who deposited it with him.

68
Q

R v WILDBORE

A

A ‘passive custodian’ who relinquishes custody of a drug to meet the needs of another, has the necessary intent for supply.

69
Q

R v DURING

A

[an offer is] an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by the statute.

70
Q

R v BROWN

A

Offering to supply a controlled drug can arise in a number of ways including where the defendant:

  • offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
  • offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
  • offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
  • offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply the drug

DDC February 2021 (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions