short answer

Question 1

What are the two sub sections to section 188(2) CA61 wounding with intent?

Answer 1

(1) everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who with intent to cause GBH to anyone, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes GBH to any person.
(2) everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to injure anyone, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes GBH to any person.

Question 2

What is the difference between 188(1) & (2)

Answer 2

Under section 188, subsections (1) & (2) both relate to actions that result in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or GBH to the victim. So the outcome is the same, the distinction between the two subsections is the offenders intent.

Question 3

What does circumstantial evidence include?

Answer 3

• the offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
• the surrounding circumstances
• the nature of the act itself

Question 4

When investigating a serious assault, what are the intents?

Answer 4

• prior threats
• evidence of premeditation
• the use of a weapon
• whether any weapon was used oportunistically or purpose bought
• the number of blows
• the degree of force used
• the body parts targeted by the offender (eg head)
• the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg unconcious)

Question 5

Explain R v Taisalika in relation to intoxication and intent?

Answer 5

In Rv Taisalika the defendant crashed a party and in an unprovoked attack struck anotge party goer on the side of the head with a glass. the glass shattered, causing a serious gash to the victims temple and causing multiple cuts to his face.

Taisalika argued unsuccessfully that he had been so intoxicated that he couldn’t remember the incident therefore he couldn’t have had the necessary intent. The court Held that loss of memory of past events is not the same as lack of intent at the time.

R v Taisalika

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

Question 6

What was held in DPP v smith?

Answer 6

Grievous bodily harm can be defined simply as harm That is really serious . As long as the harm is serious it need not involve life threatening or permanent damage

“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”

Question 7

GBH is not limited to immediate harm. Give an example of a non-immediate harmful consequence and support answer with case law?

Answer 7

In r v Mwai the defendant faced multiple counts in relation to two women who he infected with hiv, and several others who he put at risk through unprotected sex.

In affirming his conviction for causing GBH with reckless disregard for the safety of others the court of appeal held that section 188 is not limited to the immediate harmful consequences of the offenders actions, such as external assault or injury from a blow of some kind.

All that is required for the actus reus is an act causing grievous bodily harm. the link between the cause and effect is a physical one, not one of time. Usually of course the effect is instant: a blow causes a wound, but it is not necessarily so. The consequences may be delayed, but they are consequences nonetheless.

Rv Mwai
Expert medical evidence that HIV follows “a steady relentless progression” leading to AIDS and then inevitably to death was sufficient to establish that the defendant had caused grievous bodily harm.

Question 8

What was held in R v waters in relation to a wound?

Answer 8

In R v waters, despite a prolonged violent assault, the only medical evidence of harm to the victim was a bleeding nose, which was held to be an injury rather than a wound in this particular case.

However any rupture of the tissues of the body, internal or external, can amount to a wound and whether or not it does is a matter of fact for determination in each case.

R v waters

A breaking of the skin normally evidenced by a flow of blood, more often external but may be internal.

Question 9

Define a wound

Answer 9

Any rupture of the tissues of the body, internal or external, can amount to a wound and whether or not it does is a matter of fact for determination in each case.

Question 10

What is the definition of maiming?

Answer 10

In practical terms it will involve mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or one of the senses.

It is suggested in legal commentaries that to constitute a Maim, there needs to be some degree of permanence.

Question 11

What is the definition of disfuguremnt?

Answer 11

To disfigure means to deform or deface; to mar or alter the figure or appeareance of a person.

So the disfigurement results from the infliction of an external injury thar detracts from the personal appearance of the victim, however it does not need to be permanent.

Question 12

What is the doctrine of transferred malice and support with case law

Answer 12

It is not necessary that the person suffering the harm was the intended victim. where the defendant mistakes the identity of the person injured or where harm intended for 1 person is accidentally inflicted on another he is still criminally responsible under the doctrine of transferred malice despite the wrong target being struck.

Question 13

define the term injury

Answer 13

the term to injure as defined in section 2 of the crimes act 1961. To injure means to cause actual bodily harm

Question 14

What constitutes recklessness?

Answer 14

Recklessness - section 188 (2) includes the offence of wounding maiming etc. “with reckless disregard for the safety of others”. Acting “recklessly” involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.

Question 15

Define R v Harney

Answer 15

Recklessness involved foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.

Question 16

what is the definition of an injurious substance or device and give an example?

Answer 16

The term injurious substance or device covers a range of things capable of causing harm to a person for example a letter containing anthrax powder that is mailed to a political target

Question 17

Would a charge under section 198A(1) fail if the police officer was trespassing?

Answer 17

Under section 198A the officer must be acting in the course of his or her duty

Police duties arise under both statute and common law and in general terms they include protecting life and property preventing and detecting crime apprehending offenders and keeping the peace.

The term includes every lawful act a constable does while on duty and may include acts done where the circumstances create a professional obligation for a constable to exercise policing duties while off duty.

However an officer who is acting unlawfully, for example using excess force during an arrest, or trespassing on private property cannot be said to be acting in the course of his or her duty.

Question 18

what are the ingredients of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer section 198A?

Answer 18

section 198A crimes act 1961

Using any firearm against law enforcement officer etc.

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who uses any firearm in any manner what ever against any constable or any traffic officer or any prison officer acting and the course of his or her duty knowing that, or being reckless whether or not that person is a member of the police/traffic/prison officer so acting.

Question 19

What was held in R v kelt in relation to s198B?

Answer 19

Having a firearm “with him” requires a very close physical link and a degree of immediate control over the weapon by the man alleged to have the firearm with him.

Question 20

Define dishonestly under s2 CA61?

Answer 20

Dishonestly - for the purposes of theft, the term ‘dishonestly’ is defined by statute in s217 of the crimes act 1961.

Dishonestly in relation to any act or omission, means done or ommitted without a belief that there was express or implied consent to, or authority for, the act or omission from a person entitled to give such consent or authority.

Question 21

Define claim of right under s2 ca61

Answer 21

claim of right, in relation to any act, means a belief at the time of the act in a proprietary or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed, although that belief may be based on ignorant or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other then the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Question 22

what was held in R v Skivington?

Answer 22

R v Skivington

Larceny or theft is an ingredient of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the ingredients in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.

Question 23

What was held in R v laiper?

Answer 23

robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

Question 24

what is the definition of extort

Answer 24

to extort means to obtain by violence, coercion or intimidation or to extract forcibly. - oxford dictionary

Question 25

what are the factors that increase the charge from robbery to aggravated robbery?

Answer 25

section 235, crimes act 1961 aggravated robbery

everyone is liable 2 imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who:
a) robs any person and, at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after the robbery causes GBH 2 any person or

b) being together with any other person or persons robs any person or
c) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, robs any other person.

Question 26

what was held in R v joyce?

Answer 26

the crown must establish that at least 2 persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred

Question 27

what are the assault with intent to rob s 236 (1) and (2) ingredients?

Answer 27

section 236, crimes act 1961 assault with intent to rob

1 ) everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who with intent to rob any person

a) causes grevious bodily harm to that person or any other person; or
b) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument assaults that person or any other person; or
c) being together with any other person or persons assaults that person or any other person.
2) everyone who assaults any person with intent to rob that person or any other person is liable 2 imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

Question 28

What questions must you ask a CHIS when you receive information in relation to a robbery?

Answer 28

• Has the source supplied reliable information previously?
• has the information come from two separate sources?
• have the staff members who work on the premises of the intended robbery noted any suspicious people in the vicinity?
• does the company deal with large amounts of money, drugs or valuable goods?
• can you verify the information as correct?

Question 29

A man puts a letter in a neighbours letterbox threatening to damage his car unless he pays him money outline/explain the liability under section 237 blackmail

Answer 29

legislation section 237 crimes act 1961 blackmail

1) everyone commits blackmail who threatens expressly, or by implication, to make any accusation against any person whether living or dead or 2 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.

Question 30

what are the key differences between section 188 and 189?

Answer 30

means rea - the offences under this section differ from those under outlined in section 188 only in the level of injury actually inflicted. The mens rea required by the two sections is identical.

Question 31

what is the two fold test in proving intent that relates to R v Tihi?

Answer 31

1. the defendant intended to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence or one of the other intents specified an paragraph (a), (b) or (c) and
2. he or she intended to cause the specified harm, or was reckless as to that risk

In R v tihi it was held that in proving an offence against section 191, the prosecution must satisfy a two fold test for intent.

Question 32

What was held in R v tihi?

Answer 32

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraph a b or c, It must be shown that the offender either 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.

Question 33

define ‘stupifies’ as it relates to R v sturm?

Answer 33

to stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person, which really seriously interferes with the persons mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime. thus, stupefies does not only describe a situation where a person is rendered senseless or unconscious but may also include circumstances where the administration of drugs has led to dis-inhibition and stimulated uncharacteristic behaviour.

Question 34

define an accusation?

Answer 34

accusation - the word accusation will normally refer to an allegation that the defendant / person is guilty of criminal conduct. It will not require that any formal charges have been filed against the person.

Question 35

what is the statutory defence for blackmail?

Answer 35

A belief by the person making the threat that they are entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss is not in itself a defence to a charge under section 237(1), unless the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.

Question 36

list the ingredients for demands with intent to steal s239(1)?

Answer 36

1) everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, without claim of right, by force or with any threat, compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conffering a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit.

Question 37

List the ingredients for demands with intent to steal s239(2)?

Answer 37

every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who with menaces or by any threat, demands any property from any persons with intent to steal it.

Question 38

Jimmy sees billy with a new iPhone which he wants to buy. He tells billy to give him his phone to play with or else he will punch him in the head. Billy gives him the phone and runs away. What is jims criminal liability?

Answer 38

Theft 219 (no intent to deprive owner permanently)

Question 39

What was held in r v chartrand?

Answer 39

Unlawfully means “without lawful justification, authority or excuse”

Question 40

What does r v crossan state in relation to taking away and detaining?

Answer 40

Taking away and detaining are two separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking the victim away; the second of detaining her.

the first offence was complete when the prisoner took the victim away against her will. Then, having taken her away, he detained her against her will, and his conduct in detaining her constituted a new and different offence.

Question 41

What are the three intents for kidnapping s209(a)(b)(c)?

Answer 41

Kidnapping s209 CA61

(a) with intent to hold him or her for randsom or service; or
(b) with intent to cause him or her to be confined or imprisoned; or
(c) with intent to cause him or her to be sent or taken out of New Zealand.

Question 42

What must the prosecution prove against someone who abducts a young person under s210(2)?

Answer 42

1. The defendant received a person under the age of 16;
2. The receiving was deliberate or intentional;
3. The defendant knew that the young person had been unlawfully taken, enticed away, or detained by another from a person who had lawful possession of the young person; and
4. The defendant intended by reason of the receiving to deprive the person with lawful care of the possession of that young person.

Question 43

State and explain the three main investigative approach options for people trafficking and migrant smuggling?

Answer 43

Reactive Investigation-
Victim led and often initiated by an approach to police by the victim or another person acting on behalf of the victim.

Proactive investigation-
Police led. A combination of standard investigation techniques supplemented by intelligence resources to identify and locate the traffickers, gather evidence and instigate proceedings against them.

Disruptive investigation-
Appropriate in the circumstances where the level of risk to the victim demands an immediate response, and pro-active or reactive approaches are not practicable options

Question 44

What is the difference between migrant smuggling and people trafficking?

Answer 44

Migrant smuggling involves a person who has freely consented to be brought into NZ as an illegal immigrant and is not subjected to coercion or deception.

People trafficking involves a person who is bought into NZ by means of coercion and/or deception. People are often trafficked in order to exploit them in the destination country, eg as forced labour, for removal of organs or most commonly for sexual exploitation.