Serious Assaults Formative 1 prep

Question 1

R v Taisalika

Answer 1

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

Application: intent (serious assaults)

Question 2

R v Collister

( Big ‘C’ - Circumstantial)

Answer 2

Intent may be inferred from the Circumstances and can include:

1. words and actions before, during and after the event.
2. The surrounding circumstances.
3. The nature of the act itself

Question 3

DPP v Smith

(3 DPP’s v 1 Smith in a fight = GBH to Smith)

Answer 3

‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grevious’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’

Application: GBH

Question 4

R v Waters

(Water flows like blood from a wound)

Answer 4

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

Application: wound

Question 5

R v Rapana and Murray

(Think of two guys named Rapana and Murray dipping somone’s hand into hot oil - it is temporarily disfigured but able to be fixed with skin grafts)

Answer 5

Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage

Application: disfigures

Question 6

R v McArthur

(Mc ARRRRRRRRR Fuck that hurt when he smashed my kneecaps!!!)

Answer 6

‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but it must be more than transitory and trifling.

Application: injures

Question 7

Cameron v R

(Shane Cameron the ex-boxer hiffing a full can of baked beans recklessly into a crowd)

Answer 7

Recklessness is established if: (a) the defendant recognised 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

Application: recklessness

Question 8

R v Tipple

(I’m going to ‘Tip all’ these stones off the bridge and onto the cars below)

Answer 8

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”.

Application: recklessness

Question 9

R v Wati

(‘WAT’ the hell is ‘I’ doing with that knife!?!)

Answer 9

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

Application: aggravated wounding

Question 10

R v Tihi

(Tee hee hee - remember the tent skit in Austin Powers - two ‘X’ in tents)

Answer 10

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a) - (c), it must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.

Application: aggravated wounding

Question 11

R v Sturm

(Sturm - Sperm - Rape: man threatens a woman with a gun to make her stop struggling and submit to being raped, whether or not he rapes her. If he commits rape - separate charge).

Answer 11

To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime.

Application: stupefy

Question 12

R v Crossan

(They CROSS over)

Answer 12

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

Application: incapable of resistance

Question 22

What are the two components of mens rea?

Answer 22

– An intent to commit the act, and – An intent to get a specific result.

Question 23

Define intent

Answer 23

An act or omission done deliberately.

Question 24

In what circumstances would you consider choosing GBH as an offence?

Answer 24

Depending on the circumstances, if there is more than one significant injury

Question 25

List the ingredients of strangulation or suffocation and what is the penalty?

Answer 25

Crimes Act 1961 S189A Intentionally or recklessly impedes another person’s normal breathing, blood circulation, or both, by doing all any of the following: (a) blocking that other person’s nose mouth or both: (b) applying pressure on, or to, that other person’s throat, neck, or both. The penalty is seven years imprisonment.

Question 26

What is the required mens rea for strangulation or suffocation?

Answer 26

Intent or recklessness.

Question 27

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 27

Where the defendant mistakes the identity of the person injured, or where harm intended for one person is accidentally inflicted on another, he is still criminally responsible, under the doctrine of transferred malice, despite the wrong target being struck.