Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Violence Offences > Questions > Flashcards

Questions Flashcards

1
Q

What is the difference between s188 subsection (1) and (2)?

A

(1) the offender intends to cause GBH

(2) the offender intends to only injure the victim, although the outcome is a greater degree of harm than anticipated
(2) also allows for an alternative means of mens rea involving recklessness

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

Who needs to prove intent?

A

Onus is on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt

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

What circumstantial evidence can infer offenders intent?

A
  • offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
  • surrounding circumstances
  • the nature of the act itself
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What circumstantial evidence can assist in proving offenders intent?

A
  • prior threats
  • evidence of premeditation
  • the use of a weapon
  • whether any weapon used was opportunistic or purposely bought
  • the number of blows
  • the degree of force used
  • the body parts targeted by the offender
  • the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Collister

A

Circumstantial evidence can infer the offenders intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Taisalika

A

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

*just because Taisalika couldn’t remember the incident due to intoxication, that does not mean that he did not have the necessary intent. The court held that loss of memory of such events is not the same as lack of intent at the time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Degree of harm

Case law

A

Wounding, maiming or disfiguration need not be grievous if in causing that harm the defendant had the intent to cause really serious harm.

R v Hunt: the defendant attempted to stab the property owner with a knife but only inflicted a superficial cut. He was found guilty of wounding as his intent was to cause serious harm.

The court highlighted that if there was intent to do GBH it was immaterial whether grievous harm was done.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

GBH Case law

A

DPP v Smith: “bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.

As long as the harm is serious it need not involve life threatening or permanent injury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Define wounds

A

R v Waters: the breaking of the skin with a flow of blood

*a bleeding nose was held to be an injury rather than a wound

*any rupture of the tissues of the body, internal or external, can amount to a wound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Wounding v GBH

A

The terms wounds maims and disfigures refer to the type of injury caused, whereas the term grievous refers to the degree or seriousness of the injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Define maiming

A

Mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or of one of the senses. There needs to be some degree of permanence.

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

Define disfigures

A

To deform or deface, to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person.

R v Rapana and Murray: covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

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

The doctrine of transferred malice

A

It is not necessary that the person suffering the harm was the intended victim.

Where the defendant mistakes the identify of the injured person or where harm intended for one is accidentally inflicted on another he is still criminally liable.

This applied in Hunt where the defendant intended to stab the property owner but accidentally wounded his servant instead.

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

Define “to injure”

A

s2 crimes act: to injure means to cause actual bodily harm

Actual bodily harm - internal or external and need not be permanent dangerous

R v McArthur and R v Donovan

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

R v McArthur

A

Bodily harm means hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim, need not be permanent

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

Define recklessness

A

Acting recklessly involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk

Cameron v R: recklessness is established if the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that their actions would bring about the proscribed result and the circumstances existed and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

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

R v Tipple

A

Knowing the risk and acting anyway

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

Recklessness subjective and objective test

A

Subjective - a real possibility meaning something could well happen

Objective - were the defendants actions objectively reasonable given the risk the defendant understood

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

To aggravate

A

To make it worse or more serious

In the context of s191 it is aggravated but the fact that the offender caused harm to the victim in the process of committing some other imprisonable offence

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

What do crown need to prove for aggravated wounding/injury

A

The prosecution must satisfy a two fold test for intent

1) the defendant intended to (first element) - this is a specific intent

AND

2) they intended to cause the specified harm, or was reckless as to that risk - this involved either intent or recklessness

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

Define RDSO and case law

A

Consciously and deliberately taking an unjustified risk

Cameron v R: recklessness is established if the def knew their actions would bring the result and the circumstances existed and understood the risk was unreasonable

R v Tipple: knowing the risk and acting anyway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Define stupefies

A

Induce a state of stupor, to make stupid, groggy or insensible, to dull the senses or faculties

R v Sturm: to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person that interferes with their mental or physical ability to act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Disfigurement

A

Deform or deface, alter figure or appearance of a person

R v Murray and Rapana: covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Facilitate

A

Make possible or make easier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Renders unconscious

A

Cause the victim to lose consciousness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

By any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance

A

Cause any person incapable of resisting

VM is the application of force that physically incapacitated a person. Also includes threats of violence

R v Crossan: incapable of resistance. Powerlessness of the will and physical incapacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Corroborative evidence to prove intent

A
  • witness statements
  • CCTV
  • offender admissions
  • offender actions and words
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Aggravated wounding case law

A

R v Tihi: two fold test for intent - the prosecution must satisfy a two fold test for intent that the def intended to facilitate the COAIO and they intended/reckless to cause the specified harm

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What must crown prove for aggravated assault? Subsection 1

A
  • intention to apply force to another
  • force applied/attempted OR threaten to apply force and victim believes there is a threat
  • the offender intended at the time of the assault to commit imp off/help commit or avoid detection/facilitate flight
30
Q

What must crown prove for aggravated assault? Subsection 2

A
  • all elements of assault
  • offender intended at the time of the assault to obstruct constable/person
31
Q

Stupefies case law

A

R v Sturm: to cause an effect in the mind or nervous system of a person to such a capacity that it interferes with the persons mental or physical ability to act

32
Q

Incapable of resistance case law

A

R v Crossan: powerlessness of the will and physical incapacity

It was held that a mere threat in itself may not be sufficient to constitute “violent means” but if the circumstances cause the victim to submit to their will, it can be said they are rendered incapable of resistance by violent means just as if she was physically incapable

33
Q

Being together with case law

A

R v Joyce: two persons physically present at the time of the robbery/assault

R v Galey: two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force

34
Q

R v Bentham

A

Must be a thing. A persons hands/fingers are not a thing - they are not property

35
Q

Accompany case law

A

R v Maihi: must be a link between the act of stealing and threat of violence

R v Mitchell: previous threats made may stay on mind of victim

36
Q

Taking case law

A

R v Lapier: robbery is complete at the time property is taken, even if momentary

R v Peat: Return does not negate the offence

37
Q

Robbery defence case law

A

R v Skivington: claim of right is a defence to property

38
Q

Taking away

A

The victim is physically removed from one place to another

R v Wellard: deprivation of liberty coupled with carrying away from the place the victim wants to be

39
Q

Detains

A

R v Pryce: detaining is an active concept of keeping in confinement as opposed to a passive concept of harbouring

40
Q

Takes away v detains

A

R v Crossan: takes away and detains are two seperate and distinct offences

41
Q

Consent obtained by fraud

A

The offender may deceive the victim into agreeing to a proposition by misrepresenting facts or their intentions

R v Wellard: offender fraudulently gained consent by representing himself as a police officer

42
Q

Abduction intent case law

A

R v Mohi: offence is committed at the time of taking away as long as there is the necessary intent

43
Q

What are the 5 phases of a blackmail investigation

A

Initial report
Mobilisation
Consolidation
Investigation and operational
Reactive phase

44
Q

What is the sentence for injures with intent to injure s189(2)

A

5 years

45
Q

What is the sentence for aggravated injury s191(2)?

A

7 years

46
Q

Blackmail elements

A

S237(1) blackmail 14 years

  • threatens, expressly or by implication
  • to make an accusation against any person (living or dead) OR
  • to disclose something about any person (living or dead) OR
  • to cause serious damage to property OR
  • endanger the safety of any person
  • with intent
    (a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat AND
    (b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person
47
Q

What was found in R v Harney

A

Require that the defendant has recognised the risk the offence anticipated being possible. The defendant does not need to consider the risk significant

48
Q

What was found in R v Harney

A

Require that the defendant has recognised the risk the offence anticipated being possible. The defendant does not need to consider the risk significant

49
Q

What was found in R v Mwai

A

The defendant infected two women with HIV.

In affirming his conviction for causing GBH with RDSO the court held that it is not limited to immediate harmful consequences of the offenders actions.

Consequences of the harm may be delayed.

50
Q

What is the difference between migrant smuggling and people trafficking?

A

MS is people consenting to come to NZ
PT is bringing people by deception or coercion

51
Q

Define accusation

A

An allegation that the person is guilty of criminal offending whether or not any formal charges have been filed.

Immaterial if true or false.

does not need to relate to the person from whom the demand is made

52
Q

Blackmail statutory defence

A

s237(2) provides a defence to charge of blackmail

R v Marshall - it is a defence to charge if they can show they believed they were entitled to obtain benefit/cause loss and the threat was reasonable and proper means for getting it.

For jury to determine if the means were reasonable and proper

53
Q

What was found in R v Crossan for s191(1)

A

Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity.

Violent means is not limited to physical violence and can include threats of violence

54
Q

What is assault with intent to rob?

A

This occurs when no property was taken but the offender has robbery as their intent

55
Q

When is demanding with intent to steal complete?

A

When the threat is made with the necessary intent

56
Q

Define claim of right

A

A belief in a proprietary or possessory right in property

57
Q

What must crown prove for s210(1)

A

The T/E/D was intentional, unlawful and from a person who had lawful care that they knew had lawful care
And done with an intent to deprive P/G/OP the possession of YP

58
Q

Discuss s210(3)

A

It is immaterial whether the offender believes the YP consents or is taken or received at their own suggestion

59
Q

Do you need the attorney general approval to prosecute under s98c and s98d?

A

Yes but you do not need approval to arrest and oppose bail

60
Q

What are the three categories for investigating MS and PT?

A

Reactive, proactive and disruption

61
Q

Blackmail - Crown must prove

A
  • ID of suspect
  • that they threatened to make accusation/disclose info/cause damage/endanger life
  • the suspect intended to cause the person to act in accordance and to obtain benefit/cause loss
62
Q

Define disclosure

A

Does not need to relate to criminal offending

Information that would cause serious embarrassment or distress

63
Q

Define benefit

A

Includes a privilege, service or benefit that has no monetary value

64
Q

Define pecuniary advantage

A

Economic advantage or financial gain or benefit

Enhance financial position

65
Q

Define privilege

A

A special right or advantage, need not be financial

66
Q

Elements s239(2)

A
  • with menaces/by any threat
  • demands any property from any person
  • with intent to steal it

7 years

67
Q

Peneha v Police

A

Lower end of scale for violence.

Violence is more than a technical assault - violent actions that tend towards causing injury or discomfort

68
Q

Threats of violence considerations

A

Relative age of parties
Physiques
Appearance
Demeanour
What was said and done
The manner and setting in which the incident took place

69
Q

Offensive weapon

Instrument

A

OW: Any article made or altered for use for causing bodily injury

I: Include any item intended to be used as a weapon or to intimidate and overhear the victims will to resist

70
Q

Anything appearing to be such weapon or instrument

A

It must be proved that the object appeared to be an offensive weapon or instrument to the victim and the defendant intended or was reckless as to the possibility that it would be perceived as a weapon

Violence Offences (3 decks)

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