Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

CRIM 201 > DEFENCES - SELF DEFNCE and CASES > Flashcards

DEFENCES - SELF DEFNCE and CASES Flashcards

1
Q

Part 3 of the Crimes Act

A

refers to matters of justification or excuse

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

Section 2 of Crimes Act

A

defines a justification

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

Section 2 of Crimes Act definition justification

A

means they won’t be guilty of an offence and not liable to any civil proceeding (criminally or civilly liable) - means what you did was not technically a offence

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

what is an excuse

A

doesn’t mean what you did was lawful just that for some reason the law has an approach that means you will not be criminally responsible

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

Is an excuse a full defence

A

excuse is a partial defence

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

do justification and excuse result in acquittal

A
  • Some justifications or excuses don’t result in acquittal but just results in a lesser sentence e.g., murder being reduced to manslaughter or infanticide.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

section 48 crimes act

A

this section tells us we have a right to defend ourselves in such force reasonable to use.

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

what are the element of self defence as per s48

A
  1. Defence of yourself or another
  2. Force
  3. In circumstances as her believers them to be (subjective)
  4. Reasonable to use (objective)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

section 62 crimes act

A

criminalizes excessive force

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

where doe the burden of proof lie for self defence

A

Evidential onus is on the defendant to show that their actions were in self-defense; if there is evidence suggesting self-defense, the judge must present it to the jury.

Once self-defense is raised, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense or that the force used was unreasonable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

step 3 - Circumstances as believed to be by the accused cases

A

R v Terewi
R v Simpson
Graves v NZ Police

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

R v Terewi facts

A

T had a confrontation at a pub, then returned home. When the police knocked, he thought it was the person from the pub and said, “Fuck off or I’ll shoot you.”

He was convicted of threatening GBH but pleaded self-defense.

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

R v Terewi issue

A

is “force” limited to physical force?

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

R v Terewi held

A

no it is not limit to physical force, incudes threat

In the circumstances he believed himself to be in there was a violent aggressor at the door

Must be a mistake of fact and not law.

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

R v Simpson facts

A

Two brothers, heavily intoxicated, had a confrontation, leading to S being asked to leave but unable to due to his intoxication. The brother continued threatening S, who, feeling in danger, assaulted him and broke his eye socket. S pleaded self-defense against the charge of causing GBH with intent.

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

r v Simpson issue

A

Can intoxication be taken into account when considering the circumstances in accused POV?

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

r v Simpson held

A

Held that because s 48 circumstances are very subjective if perception is clouded by alcohol it must be taken into account.

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

What if the person has a phycological defect

A

R v Bridger
R v Kingi

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

R v Bridger facts

A

Beat v with a rake – unconscious

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

r v bridger issue

A

on appeal Came back and said he had a undiagnosed bipolar disorder

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

r v bridger held

A

No evidence provided that undiagnosed bipolar disorder affected subjective perception of danger;

Need to impact the perception of danger

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

R v Kingi facts

A
  • dispute with brother over farm – charged with murder
  • suffered chronic psychotic disorder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

r v kingi held

A

A psychological defect that falls short of insanity is relevant to how the accused perceives the circumstances surrounding the incident.

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

Graves v NZ Police facts

A

G, intoxicated and unable to enter his home, broke a window to get inside. The noise disturbed the neighbors, who called the police. When the police entered, G, thinking they were intruders, pointed a laser gun at them. The police ordered him to put the gun down, but G replied, “This is my house; I’ll do what I want,” and pointed the gun again.

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

Graves v NZ Police issues

A

Was G entitled to rely on self defence?

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

r v graves held

A

no, couldn’t rely on sd

second time self defence not available because he was acting for some other motive by looking at prior and subsequent events.

It wasn’t a reasonable force in the circumstances because there were other option available to him.

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

was the person acting in SD

A

R v Howard

28
Q

R v Howard facts

A
  • Howard and another were fighting

H then started biting the victims chin “to prevent anymore attacks”

29
Q

r v Howard issues

A

was this sd or something else

30
Q

r v howard held

A

Self defense is concerned with preventing future possibilities - not retaliation

31
Q

reasonableness of force used steps

A

1.imminence of the attack or anticipated attack;

  1. Nature and seriousness of the attack;
  2. was defensive reaction was reasonable and proportionate to the perceived danger;
  3. Whether there were alternative courses of action that could have been used
32
Q

step one for reasonableness

1.imminence of the attack or anticipated attack;

cases

A

R v Ranger
R v Wang

33
Q

what case developed the 4 steps for reasonableness

A

R v Afanasaga

34
Q

R v Ranger facts

A

husband assaulted wife, she got kitchen knife, husband threatened to kill her and the son by blowing their heads off and reached under the bed to where she knew there was a gun. She stabbed his in the shoulder and he subsequently died.

35
Q

r v ranger held

A

capable of providing foundation for SD - for jury to consider

36
Q

r v ranger considerations

A

pre-emptive strike

the degree of danger is she thought she was going to be killed
Worried for the safety of her and her son as he had said he was going to blow their brains out

37
Q

R v Wang facts

A
  • Abusive r/s
  • Victim threated to kill his wife and her sister
  • After he went to sleep wife stabbed him
38
Q

r v wang issues

A
  • no imminent threat to life;

-alternative options;
to justify a pre-emptive attack,

  • must be in real or crystallized danger
39
Q

r v wang held

A

sd not avail on the facts
as when he was asleep there was no immediate threat or danger and there was alternative options

40
Q

factor 2 of reasonableness

  1. Nature and seriousness of the attack;
A

R v Simpson

41
Q

R v Simpson on seriousness

A

○ Assessed to the circumstances he thought he was in at the time
- His intoxication had led him to exaggerate in his mind the danger he was in

42
Q

factor 4 for reasonableness

  1. Whether there were alternative courses of action that could have been used
A

r v wang
r v linadroos
McNaughton v R

43
Q

factor 3 for reasonableness

  1. was defensive reaction was reasonable and proportionate to the perceived danger;
A

King v Police
R v Murray
R v Afamasaga

44
Q

King v Police, facts

A

K, a young man with a broken arm, got into a conflict at a pub. After another man assaulted him and grabbed his neck, K smashed a glass in the man’s face, claiming self-defense. The District Court rejected this defense, but K’s lawyer appealed, arguing he felt threatened due to his age and injury, and instinctively used the glass.

45
Q

king v police issue

A

was the act reasonable and proportionate to the perceived danger;

46
Q

king v police held

A

yes the act was proportionate
limited options due in being seated and partly disable and smaller/younger

47
Q

R v Murray facts

A

M girlfriend was being pushed by her brother, he got knife to scare the brother off, he was assaulted by his girlfriends brother and when he got free stabbed the brother and the brother died.

48
Q

R v Murray issue

A

Was his use of the knife against an unarmed man a proportional response

49
Q

r v Murray held

A

§ Relevant that brother was bigger, had karate skills and M was beaten up - therefore enough evidence for the jury to consider SD

50
Q

what is relevant to consider for factor 3 about proportionality

A

size differences, fighting experience, sex

51
Q

r v linadroos facts

A
  • man had rented two bedroom sleepout, agreed to let someone else stay in, came home one night to find flat mate with guest which was against the rules of landlord. Flat mate assaulted L. After altercation L stabbed flat mate.
52
Q

R v Lindroos issue

A

was there alternatives to the actions made by the defendant

53
Q

R v Lindroos held

A

§ Held this was an act of aggression rather than SD.

there was other paths to take rather than stabbing

also the stabbing happened 20 mins after the assault

54
Q

USE OF lethal force

A

R v Afamasaga

55
Q

R v Afamasaga facts

A

The King Cobras gang anticipated a visit from their rival gang leader and planned to shoot him. Afamasaga acquired a gun and ammunition and acted as a lookout at the front of the property. When the rival gang leader approached within 10-12 meters, Afamasaga shot and killed him, resulting in the leader’s death at the scene.

56
Q

R v Afamasaga issues

A
  • Doesn’t sound like it was an unprepared defensive reaction

Premptive strike before any confrontation happened

Used lethal force

57
Q

R v Afamasaga held

A
  • Real or crystalized danger to do a pre-emptive strike
    • Should aim to shoot in the leg instead of the heart in order to disable them

GANGS ARE SERIOUS

58
Q

R v Afamasaga WHAT COULD BE LOOKED AT

A

s 62 excessive force and murder as knows likely to cause death

59
Q

McNaughton v R facts

A

Rival gangs organized a fight. It escalated and one member got a gun, upon presenting it was assaulted and told to put it away. In that time another member got a gun and when approached by the same assaulter M shot him in what was claimed to be “self defence”.

60
Q

McNaughton v R issue

A

Is self defence available?
Is there a partial defence to excess force initiated by SD?

61
Q

McNaughton v R held

A

no sd not avail

excess force was used to what was necessary

no need to apply partial defence because jury does it for us.

62
Q

Defence of self or another …

A

R v Thomas
Dion v Police

63
Q

R v Thomas facts

A
  • witnessed police actively subduing person

intervened; (mistake - lawful arrest);

64
Q

R v Thomas held

A
  • SD extends to defence of strangers;
    • Turns out they were resisting to being arrested so wasn’t self defences of another
65
Q

Dion v Police facts

A

Dion’s chihuahua was attacking a neighbor’s chicken that had wandered onto his property. The elderly neighbor used a cane to try to stop the dog. Dion then took the cane and assaulted the neighbor, leading to his conviction for assault with a weapon.

66
Q

Dion v Police held

A

There, the court found that the word “another” refers to another human being and not anyother creature/animals like a dog

Acting in defence of property or animal – might apply common law defence of necessit

CRIM 201 (41 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions