General Questions 2 Flashcards
Demanding with intent to steal - Section and elements
S239(1) CA 61, 14 Years Imp
- Without claim of right
- By force or with any threat
- Compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage
- With intent to obtain any benefit
Blackmail - what must you prove
You must prove the identity of the suspect and that they threatened, expressly or by implication, to:
- make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), or
- disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or
- cause serious damage to property, or
- endanger the safety of any person with intent to:
- cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat, and obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.
What is the statutory defence to Blackmail
Section 237(2) Crimes Act 1961 Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.
What are the three main investigative approach options for people trafficking and migrant smuggling
Depending on the specific features of each case, the investigative approach options for this crime-type broadly fall into three categories:
- Reactive investigation
- Proactive investigation
- Disruptive investigation.
Explain stupefies including case law
R v Sturm -“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.”
It further said that “stupefies” does not only describe a situation where a person is rendered senseless or unconscious but may also include circumstances where the administration of drugs has led to dis-inhibition and stimulated uncharacteristic behaviour.
R v Hunt (Doctrine of transferred malice)
The defendant, while breaking into another man’s stables, was caught by the property owner and his servant. Hunt attempted to stab the property owner with a knife, but in the ensuing struggle he unintentionally inflicted a superficial cut to the servant’s wrist
Doctrine of transferred malice
It is not necessary that the person suffering the harm was the intended victim. Where the defendant mistakes the identity of the person injured, or where harm intended for one person is accidentally inflicted on another, he is still criminally responsible, under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, despite the wrong target being struck.
This principle was applied in R v Hunt
Proving intent in serious assaults case
Proving an offender’s intent may include:
- Prior threats
- Evidence of premeditation
- The use of a weapon
- Whether any weapon used was opportunistic or purposely brought
- The number of blows
- The degree of force used
- The body parts targeted by the offender (eg the head)
- The degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg unconscious)
Aggravated wounding - what is the two fold intent required?
- The defendant intended to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence (or one of the other intents specified in paras (a), (b) or (c), and
- He or she intended to cause the specified harm, or was reckless as to that risk.
Mens rea and Actus reus for Discharging Firearm or Doing Dangerous Act with Intent
Section 198 creates a variety of offences, with three optional forms of intent:
- Intent to do grievous bodily harm
- Intent to injure
- Reckless disregard for the safety of others
The actus reus element involves three optional acts:
- Discharging a firearm at a person
- Delivering explosives
- Setting fire to property.
Section 188 difference between (1) and (2)
Under section 188, subsections (1) and (2) both relate to actions that result in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or grievous bodily harm to the victim. So the outcome is the same; the distinction between the two subsections is the offender’s intent.
Define ‘accusation’ in blackmail 237(1)
The word “accusation” will normally refer to an allegation that the defendant person is guilty of criminal conduct. It will not require that any formal charges have been filed against the person,
(since clearly charges could not be brought against a person who is dead, nor that the accusation be one that would involve proceedings before a judicial tribunal).
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
For a conviction under s 210(2) the Crown must prove
- The defendant received a person under the age of 16 years;
- The receiving was deliberate or intentional;
- The defendant knew the young person had been unlawfully taken or enticed away or detained by another from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of the him or her of the possession of that young person; and
- The defendant intended by reason of the receiving to deprive a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of him or her of the possession of that young person.
Statutory defence of good faith - Abduction of a young person
Section 210A - CA
A person who claims in good faith a right to the possession of a young person under the age of 16 years cannot be convicted of an offence against section 209 or section 210 because he or she gets possession of the young person.
When a defence under s210A arises, it lies with the prosecution to negate good faith beyond reasonable doubt.
