Defences Cases

Question 1

R v Terewi

Answer 1

Self-defence
Facts:
- Told police to piss off or he would shoot them
Held:
- Threats may be reasonable if you believe what you are responding to is also a threat
- Applies even if mistaken belief

Question 2

Graves v NZ Police

Answer 2

Self-defence
Facts:
- Drunk dude broke into own house
- Police came in and he confronted them with pistol
Held:
- Not reasonable response to perceived threat

Question 3

Simpson v R

Answer 3

Self-defence
Facts:
- Drunk brothers
- Smashed head into counter
Held:
- Head injury relevant
- D could use more force as he was about to lose capacity to defend himself

Question 4

R v Lindroos

Answer 4

Self-defence
Facts:
- Sleepout case
- Knife causing GBH
Held:
- Delay meant not acting in self-defence but revenge

Question 5

R v Murray

Answer 5

Self-defence
Facts:
- Knifed partner’s brother
- Brother a superior fighter
Held:
- Force with knife reasonable because of characteristic discrepancy

Question 6

R v Raroa

Answer 6

Compulsion
Facts:
- Threatened to help dispose of body
Held:
- Need an actual present threat
- Mistaken belief of threat is not enough
- Compulsion is a very narrow defence

Question 7

R v Neho

Answer 7

Compulsion
Facts:
- Women owing money to mongrel mob
- Credit card fraud
Held:
- No immediacy
- Threat must be able to be completed immediately

Question 8

Akulue v R

Answer 8

Compulsion
Facts:
- Threat to harm family back in Nigeria
Held:
- Reject the wider Canadian interpretation of compulsion

Question 9

Kapi v MOT

Answer 9

Duress
Facts:
- Hit and run
- Failed to stop car cause threat
Held:
- Duress will often overlap with compulsion

Question 10

Leason v AG

Answer 10

Duress
Facts:
- Tried to destroy satelight
- Tried to prevent harm from 2nd Iraqi war
Held:
- No duress
- No way of knowing if peril would exist or whether their actions would help

Question 11

Re A

Answer 11

Necessity
Facts:
- Conjoined twins
Held:
- The act was necessary to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil
- No more should be done than reasonably necessary
- Evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided

Question 12

Kirby v R

Answer 12

Intoxication
Facts:
- Burglary and arson of ex-girlfriends house
- Drunk
Held:
- Requirements for intoxication are fact dependent

Question 13

R v Barnes

Answer 13

Consent
Facts:
- Football match with serious leg injury
Held:
- Implied consent in sport
- But if injury further than implied scope may be liable

Question 14

R v Lee

Answer 14

Consent
Facts:
- Exorcism
Held:
- Endorsed Barnes
- Except for fighting, consent is defence when no more than mere bodily injury intented and caused

Question 15

R v Barker

Answer 15

Consent
Facts:
- Scarification
Held:
- Presumed ability to consent to infliction if injuries unless good reasons to the contrary

Question 16

S v R

Answer 16

Consent
Facts:
- Finger case
Held:
- Sliding scale from Barker

Question 17

R v Kempson

Answer 17

Consent
Facts:
- Grace Milane
Held:
- Consent not available for death
- Consent not available for dangerous act if act intended is known to be likely to cause death

Question 18

Police v Kawiti

Answer 18

Duress
Facts:
- On Marae with partner
- People had encouraged partner to beat her
- She drove to hospital with excess blood alcohol
Held:
- Duress of circumstances = a case involving a non-human threat
- Here threat from injuries not human
- Aquitted

Question 19

R v Nazif

Answer 19

Consent
Higher standard for honest belief of consent in sexual violation cases

Question 20

R v Bannin

Answer 20

Consent
Burden of negating defence of consent/honest belief in consent is on prosecution

Question 21

R v Tu

Answer 21

Insanity
Facts:
- Guy with autism
Held:
-For natural imbecility there is an essential requirement of mental weakness

Question 22

R v Armstrong

Answer 22

Facts:
- Man convinced friend was a demon
Held:
- He appreciated the nature, but not the quality of his actions
- Did not understand victim was a human being
- By not realising it was a human he was aquitted
- Not realising someone is human impacts quality of the act

Question 23

R v Dixon

Answer 23

Insanity
Facts:
- Violent rampage with samuri sword
Held:
- Neurological capacity is irrelevant
- Question is whether they knew at time that it was morally wrong

Question 24

R v Hamblyn

Answer 24

Insanity
Facts:
- DID case
Held:
- The ‘alters’ in control understood the nature and quality of the acts
- The alters were sane
- Guilty of the offences

Question 25

Cameron v R

Answer 25

Automatism
Facts:
- Sexomnia
Held:
- Without treatment reccurance is inevitable
- Held insane automatism

Question 26

R v Hutchinson

Answer 26

Duress
Causation needed

Question 27

Police v Coll

Answer 27

Duress
Facts:
- 18 y/o’s friend stabbed in face at party
- Phone dead and others at party
unwilling to help
- Sped and had been drinking
Held:
- A reasonable person with D’s characteristics would have responded similarly