Serious Assaults Flashcards

1
Q

S188(1), Crimes Act 1961

A

Wounding with intent

•With intent to cause GBH
•To any person
•Wounds OR maims OR disfigures OR causes GBH
•To any person

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

S188(2), Crimes Act 1961

A

Wounding with intent

•With intent to injure any person OR with reckless disregard for the safety of others
•Wounds OR maims OR disfigures OR causes GBH
•To any person

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

S189(2), Crimes Act 1961

A

Injures with intent

  • With intent to injure anyone OR with reckless disregard for the safety of others
  • Injures
  • any person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

S189(1), Crimes Act 1961

A

Injures with intent

  • With intent to cause GBH
  • to any person
  • Injures
  • any person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

S191(1), Crimes Act 1961

A

Aggravated Wounding

  • With Intent
    (a) To commit OR facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence; OR
    (b) To avoid detection of himself OR of any other person in the commission of any imprisonable offence; OR
    (c) To avoid the arrest OR facilitate the flight of himself or of any other person upon the commission or attempted commission of any imprisonable offence.
  • Wounds OR Maims OR Disfigures OR causes GBH to any person OR Stupefies OR renders unconscious any person OR by any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

DEFINITION: INTENT

A

There must be an intention:
- to commit the act, AND
- to get a specific result.

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

CASE LAW: INTENT

A

R v Collister
R v Taisalika

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

CASE LAW: RECKLESSNESS

A

Cameron v R
R v Tipple

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

INTENT: R v Taisalika

A

“The nature of the blow AND the gash which is produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent”

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

INTENT: R v Collister

A

Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders’ intent may be inferred can include:
- the offenders action’s and words before, during and after the event
- the surrounding circumstances
- the nature of the act itself

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

RECKLESSNESS: Cameron v R

A

Recklessness is established if:

(a) The Defendant recognized that there was 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.

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

RECKLESSNESS: R v Tipple

A

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 that risk”.

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

CASE LAW: BODILY HARM

A

R v McArthur
R v Donovan

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

BODILY HARM: R v McArthur

A

“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.

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

WOUND: R v Water

A

A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. May be internal or external’.

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

CASE LAW: GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm)

A

DPP v Smith
R v MWAI

17
Q

GBH: DPP v SMITH

A

‘Bodily Harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’.

18
Q

DEFINE: PERSON

A

Gender neutral. Proved by CE / JN.

19
Q

CASE LAW: WOUNDS

A

R v Waters

20
Q

CASE LAW: DISFIGURES

A

R v Rapana and Murray

21
Q

DISFIGURES: R v Rapana and Murray

A

Disfigures covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

22
Q

DEFINE: MAIMS

A

Mutilating, Crippling or Disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the Victim of the user of a limb or of one of the senses.

23
Q

DEFINE: DISFIGURES

A

To ‘disfigure’ means “to deform or deface; to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person”.

24
Q

DEFINE: INJURY

A

To injure means to cause actual bodily harm.

25
Q

CASE LAW: R v Tihi
(Aggravated Wounding)
- With intent to commit OR facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence.

A

Must satisfy ‘two fold’ test for intent:

  1. The Defendant intended to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence (OR one of the other intents specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)), AND
  2. He intended to cause the specified harm, OR was reckless as to that risk.
26
Q

CASE LAW: R v Wati
(Aggravated Wounding)
- With Intent to avoid arrest or facilitate the flight of himself or of any other person upon the commission or attempted commission of any imprisonable offence.

A

There must be proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime either by the person committing the crime or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

27
Q

DEFINE: FACILITATE

A

To ‘facilitate’ means to make possible or make easy / easier.

28
Q

DEFINE: STUPEFIES

A

To ‘stupefy’ means to induce a state or stupor, to make stupid, groggy or insensible; to dull the senses or faculties.

29
Q

CASE LAW: STUPEFIES

A

R v Sturm

30
Q

STUPEFIES: R v Sturm

A

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 a way which might hinder an intended crime.

31
Q

DEFINE: RENDERS UNCONSCIOUS

A

To ‘render’ means to ‘cause to be’ or ‘cause to become’.

The offenders actions must cause the Victim to loose consciousness.

32
Q

CASE LAW: R v Crossan
(Aggravated Wounding)
- by any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance.

A

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

R v Crossan - the Defendant, intending to rape the Victim, presented a loaded revolver at her and threatened to shoot her unless she submitted to sexual intercourse.

33
Q

ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

A
  • prior threats
  • evidence of premeditation
  • the use of a weapon
  • whether any weapon used was opportunistic or purposely brought
  • the number of blows
  • the degree of force used
  • the body parts targeted by the offender (e.g the head)
  • the degree of resistance or helplessness of the Victim (e.g unconscious)