Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Violence 010- Caselaw and liabilities > Other Caselaw > Flashcards

Other Caselaw Flashcards

1
Q

Proving Intent

R v Collister

A
  • two police officers charged with demanding with menaces
  • caused a man to believe he would be arrested for soliciting homosexual acts unless he paid them money.
  • no express demand was made but the defendants intent could be inferred from the circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Proving intent in serious assault cases

R v Taisalika

A
  • defendant crashed a party
  • in an unprovoked attack struck another part goer on the side of the head with a glass
  • causing a serious gash to the victims temple and multiple cuts to his face
  • defence was he could not remember the incident due to being intoxicated
  • loss of memory of past events is not the same as lack of intent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Degree of harm

R v Hunt

A
  • defendant broke into another mans stables
  • confronted by the owner and his servant
  • attempted to stab the property owner with a knife
  • inflicted a superficial cut to the servants wrist
  • if there is intent to do GBH it is immaterial whether GBH was done.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Psychiatric injury

Owen v residential health management unit

A
  • bodily harm may include psychiatric injury (not fear, distress, panic or hysterical or nervous condition)
  • the injury will require expert evidence and be an identifiable clinical condition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Psychiatric injury

R v Donaldson

A
  • defendant performed indecent acts on the victim while he was unconscious
  • victim had no recollection but once learned of the it had a profound psychological impact on him
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Not limited to immediate harm

R v Mwai

A
  • defendant charged in relation to infecting two women with HIV and several others he put at risk
  • GBH not limited to immediate harmful consequences such as from an assault
  • HIV leads to AIDS and then death sufficient for GBH
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Wounds

R v waters

A
  • despite a prolonged attack the only medical evidence was a bleeding nose which was held to be an injury rather than a wound
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wounds

R v Scott and Lewis

A
  • charged with wounding with intent to injure
  • punched the victim repeatedly to the head
  • victim on anti coagulant drugs
  • surgery for a blood clot on the brain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Disfigurement

R v Rapana and Murray

A
  • The defendants held down the victim and tattooed red marks on his face using a needle and red ink from a broken pen
  • marks faded and were gone by the time of the trial
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Actual bodily harm

R v Donovan

A
  • a man charged with caning a 17 year old girl for his own sexual gratification
  • doctor examined girl and found marks consistent with a severe beating
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Recklessness

R v Harney

A

-Defendant was convicted of murder after stabbing the victim in the stomach during an altercation. He argued unsuccessfully he had been aiming for the victims leg knowing he could have seriously injured the man but denied wanting to kill him.

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

Recklessness

R v Tripple

A

Suggests that as a general rule recklessness is to be given the subjective meaning which requires that the accused had a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk.

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

Facilitate Flight

R v Wati

A

-the Defendant was present during a riot in which Police officers were attacked and a police vehicle set on fire. Wati fled the scene but was caught but a Constable, who kicked and punched in an attempt to avoid arrest. Charged with riot and aggravated assault.

Was acquitted on the riot charge and therefor could not be convicted of the aggravated assault.. Convicted of common assault.

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

Stupefies

R v Sturm

A

-the Defendant was convicted after administering alcohol, ecstasy and other drugs to a number of male victims in order to dull their senses to enable him to sexually violate them.

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

Violent means

R v Claridge

A

The defendant attempted to hit a prison officer on the headwind an iron bar while attempting to escape from prison. The prison officer blocked the blow but in the process fell from the prison wall and sustained injuries including a broken ankle.

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

Rendered incapable of resistance

R v Crossan

A

The defendant intending to rape the victim presented a loaded revolver at her and threatened to shoot her unless she submitted to sexual intercourse.

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

Injurious substance or device

R v Fitzgerald

A

The court of appeal looked at an injurious device. The offender in this matter had set up a perimeter fence around a band headquarters, consisting of barbed wire connected to an electric fence unit.

His conviction was quashed as the unit was not operating at the time however it was acknowledged that if plugged into the mains power supply the fence would have been a device likely to cause injury.

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

Uses in any manner whatever

R v Swain

A

The defendant when confronted by a Constable removed swan off shot gun from a bag saying don’t be stupid causing the officer to fear for his safety. Although he didn’t point the gun at the officer it was held that his actions in taking the shotgun out of the bag in plain view of the Constable amounted to the use of the firearm in an intimidating and threatening manner against him.

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

Uses in any manner whatever

Police v Parker

A

The defendant when confronted by police producing a loaded sawn off shotgun and aimed it at a Constable. A struggle ensued and the weapon was again aimed at the officers finger on the trigger. The weapon was finally thrown to the ground without being fired.

To use in any manner whatever is said to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and would include presenting it.

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

Knowing

Simester and Brookbanks

A

Say that knowing means knowing or correctly believing the defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot know something that is false.

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

Intent to resist lawful arrest or detention

Fisher v R

A

The defendant had discharged a firearm several times in a building but refused to come out when called upon by AOS. He fired a further shot from within the building, although there was insufficient evidence that it was directed at Police.

22
Q

Prima Facie

Tuli v Police

A

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

23
Q

Claim of right a defence to robbery

R v Skivington

A

-the defendant went to an office where he and his wife worked and demanded their wage packets two days early. He threatened one of the managers and forced the man at knife point to retrieve the cash from the safe. His conviction for robbery with aggravation was quashed on the basis that he genuinely believed he w as entitled to the money.

24
Q

Taking

R v Lapier

A

A lady emerged from an opera house and was about to step onto her awaiting carriage when the defendant snatched her gold and diamond earring, tearing it from her ear. Although he had the earring only momentarily and lost it again when it became tangled in the lady’s hair. Sufficient for taking.

25
Q

Taking

R v Peat

A

The defendant on horse back stopped a gentlemans carriage and demanded money. The gentleman handed his coin purse to the defendant who handed it straight back saying give me the contents of it.. At that point he was apprehended and convicted of robbery.

26
Q

Accompanied by..

R v Maihi

A

The complainant wore a leather jacket to a Hamilton hotel. The defendant kept on saying he liked it. Feeling under pressure the complainant and his friend asked for it back. The defendant offered to fight them for it which they declined. The defendant left the hotel with the jacket.

27
Q

Accompanied by

R v Mitchell

A

The defendant approached the owner of a massage parlour and offered him insurance against the mongrel mob in exchange for $300 per week. He made threats against the victim’s family and threatened to burn the building down if he did not comply. Several days later the victim made the first payment. Defence was the treats were not sufficiently proximate to the money being handed over.. The court held the threats were still operating on the mind of the victim at the time.

28
Q

Violence

Peneha v Police

A

The defendant grabbed a women’s handbag and attempted to run off. The women tried to retain her bag.. Her hand twisted and pulled backwards to the point it hurt and she was forced to let go. Sufficient for violence although at the lower e no of the scale.

29
Q

Threats of violence

R v Broughton

A

Two street kids approached the victim who was sitting alone at a bus stop. They sat on either side of him and asked him if he had any money. The victim said no and Broughton leaned in close again and asked for money. His manner was not overtly aggressive but his demeanour and the circumstances caused the victim to fear violence would be used if he continued refuse so he handed over the cash. Broughtons actions amounted to robbery threats by violence.

30
Q

Threats of violence

R v Butler

A

The defendant wearing a balaclava confronted a man who was in the process of locking up his business premises and stole a briefcase containing $16000.

The sudden appearance of a tall man wearing a balaclava in circumstances where the complainant was securing his premises for the night and had a large amount of cash on hi was inherently violent.

31
Q

Threats of violence

R v Pacholko

A

The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yard stick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than the strength of the nerves of the person threatened.

32
Q

Used to extort the property stolen

R v Newell

A

The defendant was confronted by a security guard in the parking lot after stealing meat from a supermarket. He swung a knife at the guard and ran away leaving the meat behind. The court of appeal quashed his conviction for robbery on the basis that the violence had been used not to overcome resistance to the theft but to facilitate his escape afterwards.

33
Q

Extort

R v Marco

A

It was held that if the victim knows that the police are ready to step in and prevent the actual infliction of harm and is therefore unaffected by threats made by the accused, there will be no robbery.

34
Q

Any person

R v Wells

A

Held that there is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within this section.

35
Q

Physical proximity

R v Joyce

A

The defendant was charged with aggravated robbery by being together with two co-offenders during a robbery. One of the co-offenders had gone into a service station and robbed the attendant, while Joyce and another were lurking in the neighbourhood but taking no physical part in the robbery.

The court of appeal quashed Joyce’s conviction, stating that s235(b) is intended to provide for cases where the victim was confronted by two or more persons acting in concert.

36
Q

Joint enterprise

R v Galey

A

A young woman lured a Japanese seaman out of a bar on the pretence that she would have sex with him for money. Once outside he was attacked by a male who kicked him, knocked him to the ground and stole his cash. The males associate Galey kicked the man once in the feet but had no further participation in the assault or the theft.

The court of appeal quashed Galey’s conviction for aggravated robbery on the basis that the charge was not aimed at those who were present at the scene only to a task look out or to give encouragement.

37
Q

Anything appearing to be such

R v Bentham

A

The victim broke into a house where the victim was asleep in bed and put his hand under his jacket pushing the material out to give the impression he had a gun. He threatened to shoot the victim, who handed over money as a consequence of the threat.

Anything does not include the defendants unsevered hand.

38
Q

R v Marshall

Black mail communication of the threat

A

The court confirmed that the threat made need not be received directly by the intended victim provided it is conveyed to that victim.

39
Q

Blackmail

Accusation

R v Kirby

A

The accused, a detective, claimed to have a warrant to arrest his victim for buggery, and said that the victim would be imprisoned for ten years and his property would be taken unless he offered the detective money. The Court held that these comments amounted to an accusation or threat to accuse.

40
Q

Blackmail

Statutory Defence

R v Marshall

A

The Court of Appeal said an accused can avoid liability where he or she believes in an entitlement to obtain the benefit or to cause the loss and objectively viewed the threat is a reasonable and proper means for bringing about that obtaining or that causing of the loss. It will be for the jury to determine whether the means we’re reasonable and proper.

41
Q

Taking away

R v Wellard

A

A man approached a young couple and told them falsely he was a police officer looking for drugs. He asked the young woman to accompany him, which she did, believing she had to follow his instructions. The girl walked about 100 yards with him and got into the back of his car, before being rescued by her boyfriend.

42
Q

Taking away vs detaining

R v Crossan

A

The defendant took a woman from her home at gunpoint and drove her to another address where he detained her with intent to carnally know her. He was charged that he did take her away and detain her.

43
Q

Detains

Boyd v R

A

A woman who had driven to a schedule lake to walk her dog was approached by a stranger who robbed her of her wallet. The man stood next to her car talking to her while brandishing a knife for 10-15 minutes before she was able to drive off.

44
Q

R v Isherwood

Consent

A

The Court noted that consent may be present even though there was some degree of irrationality or insobriety depending on the circumstances of the case.

45
Q

Consent obtained by fraud

R v Cort

A

A man stopped his car at several bus stops where women were waiting on their own. He falsely told them that the bus had broken down offered to give them a lift. On two occasions women voluntarily got into his car on the basis of his deceit, and he was convicted of kidnapping.

46
Q

Consent obtained by duress

Hirani v Hirani

A

A young Indian girl successfully sought a divorce after being forced by her family to enter into an arranged marriage. The girl went through with the ceremony under threat of being kicked out of the family home if she did not, which would have left her with nowhere to live and no means to support herself.

47
Q

Intent in abduction cases

R v Mohi

A

A man who was charged with abducting his wife argued that the Crown had to prove both a lack of consent to the taking away, and a lack of consent to the subsequent intercourse.

48
Q

Intent in abduction cases

R v Waaka

A

The defendant while attending a party, assisted an associate to carry a comatose woman behind a wall some 3-4 metres away, where the associate subsequently raped her.

49
Q

Person having lawful care or charge

R v Chartrand

A

A 43year old man enticed an 8 year old boy away from where he was playing and took photographs of the boy. He argued that his intention had not been to deprive the parents of possession of the child, but simply to take photos as a surprise for the boy’s parents, whom he did not know.

50
Q

R v Forrest and Forrest

Proof of age

A

Two men were charged with having sexual intercourse with a 14 year old girl who had run away from child welfare custody. At trial the girl produced her birth certificate and gave evidence herself that she was the person named in the certificate. The men successfully appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Crown had not adequately proved the girls age.

51
Q

Proof of age

R v Clancy

A

The victims birth certificate was not produced but it was held that in that case evidence of the victims date of birth given by her mother was sufficient to prove the girls age.

52
Q

Simester and Brookbanks

Knowing

A

Suggest knowing means knowing or correctly believing.the further premise that the defendant may believe something wrongly but cannot know something that is false.

Violence 010- Caselaw and liabilities (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions