Formative 1 Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent Application: intent (serious assaults)
R v Collister
( Big ‘C’ - Circumstantial)
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 Application: intent
DPP v Smith
(3 DPP’s v 1 Smith in a fight = GBH to Smith)
‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grevious’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’ Application: GBH
R v Waters
(Water flows like blood from a wound)
A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood’. May be internal or external. Application: wound
R v Rapana and Murray
(Think of two guys named Rapana and Murray dipping somone’s hand into hot oil - it is temporarily disfigured but able to be fixed with skin grafts)
Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
Application: disfigures
R v McArthur
(Mc ARRRRRRRRR Fuck that hurt when he smashed my kneecaps!!!)
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but it must be more than transitory and trifling. Application: injures
Cameron v R
(Shane Cameron the ex-boxer hiffing a full can of baked beans recklessly into a crowd - Recklessness)
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; and (b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable Application: recklessness
R v Tipple
(I’m going to ‘Tip all’ these stones off the bridge and onto the cars below - Recklessness)
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”. Application: recklessness
R v Wati
(‘WAT’ the hell is ‘I’ doing with that knife!?!)
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
Application: aggravated wounding
R v Tihi
(Tee hee hee - remember the tent skit in Austin Powers - two ‘X’ in tents - aggravated wounding)
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. Application: aggravated wounding
R v Sturm
(Sturm - Sperm - Rape: man threatens a woman with a gun to make her stop struggling and submit to being raped, whether or not he rapes her. If he commits rape - separate charge).
To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime Application: stupefy
R v Crossan
(They CROSS over)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity. Application: incapable of resistance
R v Misic
(Misic = Misc. - the ‘misc’ folder on our computers with all our ‘miscellaneous’ documents on them)
Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record Application: document
AP Simester and WJ Brookbanks
Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”. The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot ‘know’ something that is false. Application: guilty knowledge
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaay! Don’t USE my document!)
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. Application: uses a document (attempts)
R v Cara
(Cara sounds like a really good value for $ car eg, Nissan Cara)
Service is limited to financial or economic value, and excludes privileges or benefits. Application: service
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaaaaay! Look at all of my pecuniary advantage!)
A pecuniary advantage is, “anything that enhances the accused’s financial position. It is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage“. Application: pecuniary advantage
Hayes v R
(Haaaaaaaay! I’m flush with valuable consideration!)
A valuable consideration is, “Anything capable of being a valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind; in short, money or money‘s worth”. Application: valuable consideration.
