Serious Assault Case Law Flashcards
Liabilities and Case law
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the neccessary intent.
R v Tipple
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires a “deliberate decision to run the risk”.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
a) the defendant recognised there would be a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
b) having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable.
R v McArthur
“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.
DDP v Smith
“Bodily Harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”
R v Waters
A wound is a “breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. May be internal or external.
R v Rapana and Murray
Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
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, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.
R v Tihi
It must be shown that the offender meant to cause specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.
R v Sturm
To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that persons mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder the intended crime.
R v Wati
There must be proof of the commision 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.
R v Crossan
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.
R v Collister
Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include:
The offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
The surrounding circumstances
The nature of the act itself.
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the neccessary intent.
R v Taisalika
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires a “deliberate decision to run the risk”.
R v Tipple
