Offences With Case Law Flashcards
Wounding With Intent To GBH Section 188 (1)
- With Intent to cause GBH
R v Colister – Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Deliberate act to achieve a specific
outcome.
R v Taisalika – The nature of the blow and the gash it produced on the victim’s head would point
strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really
serious. Harm that is really serious.
- To Any Person
- Wounds,
R v Waters- A breaking of the skin would commonly be regarded as a wound. The breaking of the
skin will normally be evidenced by a flow of blood either externally or internally.
- Maims,
- Disfigures, OR
R v Rapana and Murray – The word disfigures not only covers permanent damage but temporary
damage.
- Cause GBH
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really
serious. Harm that is really serious. - Any Person
Wounding With Intent Section 188 (2)
- With intent to injure Any Person OR
R v Colister – Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Deliberate act to achieve a specific
outcome.
R v Donovan – Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health of the
victim. It need not be permanent but must be more than transitory and trifling.
- With Reckless Disregard for the safety of others
Cameron v R – Recklessness is established if
(a) the defendant recognised the real possibility that
i. his actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
ii. the proscribed circumstances existed and
(b) having regard to that those actions were unreasonable.
- Wounds,
R v Waters- A breaking of the skin would commonly be regarded as a wound. The breaking of the
skin will normally be evidenced by a flow of blood either externally or internally.
- Maims,
- Disfigures OR
R v Rapana and Murray – The word disfigures not only covers permanent damage but temporary
damage.
- Cause GBH
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really
serious. Harm that is really serious. - To any Person
Injuring With Intent Section 189 (1)
- With Intent to cause GBH
R v Colister – Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Deliberate act to achieve a specific
outcome.
R v Taisalika – The nature of the blow and the gash it produced on the victim’s head would point
strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really
serious. Harm that is really serious.
- To Any Person
- Injures (Actual Bodily Harm)
R v Donovan – 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 be more than transitory and trifling.
- Any Person
Injuring With Intent Section 189 (2)
- With intent to injure any person OR
R v Colister – Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Deliberate act to achieve a specific
outcome.
R v Donovan – Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health of the
victim. It need not be permanent but must be more than transitory and trifling.
- With Reckless Disregard for the safety of others
Cameron v R – Recklessness is established if
(c) the defendant recognised the real possibility that
iii. his actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
iv. the proscribed circumstances existed and
(d) having regard to that those actions were unreasonable.
- Injures
R v Donovan – Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health of the
victim. It need not be permanent but must be more than transitory and trifling.
- Any Person
Aggravated Wounding Section 191
(1) - Every person with intent
a) To commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence OR
b) To avoid the detection of himself or another person in the commission of an imprisonable offence OR
c) To avoid arrest or the facilitate the flight of himself or another person upon the commission of any imprisonable offence.
R v Wati – 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.
- Wounds any Person
R v Waters- A breaking of the skin would commonly be regarded as a wound. The breaking of the skin will normally be evidenced by a flow of blood either externally or internally.
- Maims any Person OR
- Disfigures any Person OR
R v Rapana and Murray – The word disfigures not only covers permanent damage but temporary
damage.
- Causes GBH to any person OR
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really
serious. Harm that is really serious.
- Stupefies any person OR
- Renders any person unconscious OR
By any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance
R v Tihi – In addition to one of the intents in (a),(b) or (c) it must be shown that the offender meant
to cause the specified harm or foresaw the actions undertaken were likely to expose others to the
risk of suffering it.
- Every person with any such intent aforesaid -
Injures any person
Discharging Firearm or Doing Dangerous Act With Intent Section 198
(1) - Everyone who with intent to cause GBH
R v Colister – Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Deliberate act to achieve a specific
outcome.
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really
serious. Harm that is really serious.
a) Discharges any firearm, airgun or other similar weapon at any person.
R v Pekepo – A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
b) Sends OR delivers to any person OR puts in any place
Any explosive OR injurious substance OR device
c) Sets fire to any property
- Anyone with intent to injure OR with reckless disregard for the safety of others does any of the acts referred to in subsection (1) of this section
Aggravated Assault Section 192
- Every person who assaults any other person with intent
a) To commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence OR
b) To avoid the detection of himself or another person in the commission of an
imprisonable offence OR
c) To avoid arrest or the facilitate the flight of himself or another person upon the
commission of any imprisonable offence
- Anyone
- Who assaults
- Any constable OR
- Any person acting in aid of any constable OR
- Any person in the lawful execution of any process
- With intent to obstruct the person so assaulted in the execution of his duty.
Using Any Firearm Against Law Enforcement Officer Section 198A
- Any Person who
- Uses a firearm in any manner whatever
R v Swain – To deliberately remove a sawn-off shotgun from a bag after being called upon by a Police Constable amounts to a use of that firearm under section 198A Crimes Act 1961.
- Against any Constable OR
- Traffic Officer OR
- Prison Officer
- Acting in the course of his duty
- Knowing that OR
- being reckless that person is a member of the Police so acting
- Any person who
- Uses a firearm in any manner whatever
R v Swain – To deliberately remove a sawn-off shotgun from a bag after being called upon by a Police Constable amounts to a use of that firearm under section 198A Crimes Act 1961.
- With intent to resist the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person
Fisher v R – It is necessary under 198A (2) to prove the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him.
Commission Of An Imprisonable Offence With A Firearm Section 198B
- Every Person who
a) In committing any imprisonable offence uses any firearm
b) While committing any imprisonable offence
- Has any firearm with him
- In circumstances that prima facie shows an intention to use it in connection with that imprisonable offence.
Robbery Section 234
- Theft
(Dishonestly, Without Claim of Right, Takes, Any Property, with intent to permanently deprive the owner)
R v Skivington – Claim of right defence. If a person has a claim of right to the property, then it negates one of the elements of robbery.
R v Lapier - Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken even if its only momentary.
R v Cox – Possession involves two elements. Physical and mental knowledge. Physical is actual or potential custody or control. Mental is knowledge and an intention to posses it.
- Accompanied by violence OR
- Threats of violence
R v Maihi (threat) – To accompany there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. The act of stealing and the threat of violence does not need to be contemporaneous
Peneha v Police (violence) – It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfered with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action.
- To any person OR
- Property
- Used to extort the property stolen OR
- Prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen
Aggravated Robbery Section 235
- Everyone who
a) Robs any person
R v Skivington – Claim of right defence. If a person has a claim of right to the property, then in negates one of the elements of robbery.
R v Lapier - Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken even if its only momentarily.
R v Maihi – To accompany there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. The act of stealing and the threat of violence does not need to be contemporaneous.
Peneha v Police – It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfered with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action.
- And at the time of OR
- Immediately before OR
- Immediately after
- Causes GBH to
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really serious. Harm that is really serious.
- Any Person
b) Being together with any other person/s
R v Joyce – Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.
R v Galey – Being together in the context of 235(b) involves two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as the circumstances require, directly in the preparation if the crime.
- Robs
R v Skivington – Claim of right defence. If a person has a claim of right to the property, then in negates one of the elements of robbery.
R v Lapier - Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken even if it’s only momentarily.
R v Maihi – To accompany there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. The act of stealing and the threat of violence does not need to be contemporaneous.
Peneha v Police – It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfered with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action.
- Any person
c) Being armed with an offensive weapon OR
- Instrument OR
- Anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument.
- Robs
R v Skivington – Claim of right defence. If a person has a claim of right to the property, then in negates one of the elements of robbery.
R v Lapier - Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken even if its only momentarily.
R v Maihi – To accompany there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. The act of stealing and the threat of violence does not need to be contemporaneous.
Peneha v Police – It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfered with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action.
- Any Person
Abduction Section 208
- Everyone who Unlawfully
- Takes Away OR
- Detains
R v Wellard – The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from a place where the victim wants to be.
R v Crossan – Taking away and detaining are separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking away and the second consists of detaining. The first is when the person is taken away against their will. Then having taken her away against her will and his conduct is now
detaining her constituted a new and different offence.
R v Pryce – Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody.
- A Person
- Without that persons consent OR
- With that person’s consent obtained by fraud or duress.
R v Cox – Consent must be full, free, voluntary, and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.
a) With intent to go through a form of marriage or civil union with the person.
b) With intent to have sexual connection with the person.
R v Waaka – Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commences without the intent to have intercourse but then the intent is formed during the taking away, that is sufficient.
c) With intent to cause the person to go through a form of marriage or civil union or have sexual connection with some other person.
Mohi – The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or taking accompanied by the necessary intent regardless of whether that intent was carried out.
Kidnapping Section 209
- Everyone who Unlawfully
- Takes Away OR
- Detains
R v Wellard – The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from a place where the victim wants to be.
R v Crossan – Taking away and detaining are separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking away and the second consists of detaining. The first is when the person is taken away against their will. Then having taken her away against her will and his conduct is now
detaining her constituted a new and different offence.
R v Pryce – Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody.
- A Person
- Without that persons consent OR
- With that person’s consent obtained by fraud or duress
R v Cox – Consent must be full, free, voluntary, and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.
R v M - The Crown must prove that the accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he knew that the complainant was not consenting.
a) With intent to hold him or her for ransom or to service.
b) With intent to cause him or hold confined or imprisoned.
c) With intent to cause him or her to be sent or taken out of New Zealand.
Mohi – The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or taking accompanied by the necessary intent regardless of whether that intent was carried out.
Abduction Of A Young Person Under 16 Section 210
1) Everyone who with intent to deprive a Parent, Guardian, or other person having the lawful care or charge of the young person
R v Forrest and Forrest – The best evidence available should be adduced to prove the vicitms age.
- Of the possession of the Young Person
R v Cox – Possession involves two elements. Physical and mental knowledge. Physical is actual or potential custody or control. Mental is knowledge and an intention to possess it.
- Unlawfully takes OR
- Entices away OR
- Detains the young person
R v Wellard – The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from a place where the victim wants to be.
R v Crossan – Taking away and detaining are separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking away and the second consists of detaining. The first is when the person is taken away against their will. Then having taken her away against her will and his conduct is now
detaining her constituted a new and different offence.
R v Pryce – Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody.
2) Every who receives a young person
R v Forrest and Forrest – The best evidence available should be adduced to prove the vicitms age.
- Knowing that he or she has been taken or enticed away or detained
R v Wellard – The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from a place where the victim wants to be.
R v Crossan – Taking away and detaining are separate and distinct offences. The first consists
of taking away and the second consists of detaining. The first is when the person is taken away against their will. Then having taken her away against her will and his conduct is now detaining her constituted a new and different offence.
R v Pryce – Detaining is an active concept meaning to keep in confinement or custody.
- With intent to deprive a parent, guardian, or other person having the lawful care or charge of him/her
- Of possession of him/her
R v Cox – Possession involves two elements. Physical and mental knowledge. Physical is actual or potential custody or control. Mental is knowledge and an intention to possess it.
Assault With Intent To Rob Section 236
- Everyone who with intent to rob any person
R v Colister – Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Deliberate act to achieve a
specific outcome.
a) Cause GBH
DPP v Smith – Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more or no less than really serious. Harm that is really serious.
- To that person or any other person
b) Being armed with any offensive weapon OR
instrument OR
anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument
- Assaults that person OR
- Any other person
c) Being together with any other person or persons
- Assaults that person OR
- Any other person
