SHORT ANSWER - MOCK 3 Flashcards
In the matter of R v Taisalika, the Defendant crashed a party and in an unprovoked attack, struck another partygoer on the side of the head with a glass which shattered, causing a serious gash to the victim’s head and face. The Court subsequently discussed the issue of intent and intoxication.
What was held in R v Taisalika regarding intent and intoxication?
It was argued unsuccessfully that he had been so intoxicated he could not remember the incident, therefore he could not 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. “The nature of the blow and the gash which is produced on the complainants head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
The “Doctrine of Transferred Malice” looks at the defendant’s liability for his actions in relation to violence offences?
Explain the “Doctrine of Transferred Malice”?
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 one person is accidentally inflicted on another, he is still criminally responsible, under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, despite the wrong target being struck.
In proving intent in serious assault cases additional circumstantial evidence may assist in the proving of an offender’s intent.
Provide 4 examples of what that circumstantial evidence may include.
- Offenders actions and words before during and after the event
- Surrounding circumstances
- Nature of the act itself
Under section 188 - Crimes Act 1961, subsections (1) and (2) both relate to actions that result in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or grievous bodily harm to the victim. So, the outcome is the same, distinction between the two subsections is the offenders intent.
Explain the difference between subsections (1) and (2) in relation to the intent?
In subsection (1) the offender intends to cause grievous bodily harm
In subsection (2) the offender intends only to injure the victim, although the actual outcome is a greater degree of harm than he anticipated
Subsection (2) also allows for an alternative mens rea element involving “reckless disregard for the safety of others”
The concept of “taking property” is an element of theft, and therefore a key element of Robbery.
What was held in R v Lapier regarding taking property?
Robbery is complete the instance the property is taken, even if possession is only momentarily.
Section 188 - Crimes Act 1961 identifies 4 outcomes that can occur as a result of the defendants’ actions?
Define the 4 terms?
a) Grevious bodily harm
- Really serious harm
b) Wounds
- The breaking of the skin by the flow of blood
c) Maims
- Mutilating, crippling, disabling a part of the body/senses or deprive of its use
d) Disfigures
- deform or deface, alter figure or appearance of a person
In sections 191(1) and (2) - Crimes Act 1961 the offending is aggravated as the offender causes a victim harm during the commission of an imprisonable offence. Both subsections require proof that the harm was done for one of three specified intents.
Outline the three specified intents?
- Intent to commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence
- Intent to avoid the detection of himself or of any other person in the commission of any imprisonable offence
- Intent 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.
In Section 198B(1)(b) - Crimes Act 1961, there is a requirement that the defendant “has a firearm with him”
Explain what this term means?
The offender had possession, custody and control and also had the ability to use while committing an imprisonable offence.
Section 198A(1) - Crimes Act 1961, specifies using a firearm against a law enforcement officer.
Section 198A(2) - Crimes Act 1961 specifies using a firearm against people other than law enforcement officers?
What are the elements of Section 198A(2) - Crimes Act 1961?
Uses any firearm in any manner whatever
With intent to resist the lawful arrest or detention of himself, herself or any other person
An element of Section 198A - Crimes Act 1961 is that a constable is to be acting in the course of their duties at the times the firearm is used against them.
Explain why a charge under Section 198A could fail if the officer was trespassing at the time the offence occurred?
The officer cannot to be said to be acting in the course of his/her duty.
In R v Tihi the Court held that there is a two-fold test that the prosecution must satisfy in order to prove an offence against Section 191 - Crimes Act 1961 (Aggravated Wounding/Injury)
What is the two-fold test the prosecution must satisfy?
- The offender intended to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence
- The offender intended to cause the specific harm or was reckless of the risk.
