Must Knows

Question 1

DPP V SMITH

Answer 1

Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

Question 2

R v Pekepo

Answer 2

A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passerby who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.

Question 3

R v Donovan

Answer 3

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, no doubt be more than merely transitory or trifling.

Question 4

R v Harney

Answer 4

Recklessness is a conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

Question 5

R v Swain

Answer 5

To deliberately or purposely remove a sawn-off shotgun from a bag after being confronted by or called upon by a police Constable amounts to a use of that firearm within the meaning of s 198A CA 1961

Question 6

Tuli v police

Answer 6

Prima facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.