Violence

Question 1

R v Taisalika

Answer 1

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent

Question 2

DPP v Smith

Answer 2

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

Question 3

R v Waters

Answer 3

A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal.

Question 4

R v Rapana and Murray

Answer 4

The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.

Question 5

The Doctrine of Transferred Malice

Answer 5

It is not necessary that the person suffering the harm was the intended victim.

Question 6

R v Donovan

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 must, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.

Question 7

R v Harney

Answer 7

“Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.”

Question 8

R v Tihi

Answer 8

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (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 9

R v Wati

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.

Question 10

R v Pekepo

Answer 10

A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.

Question 11

Discharge (Define)

Answer 11

To fire or shoot

Question 12

Sets fire (Define)

Answer 12

Although fire damage will often involve burning or charring, it is not necessary that the property is actually set alight: melting, blistering of paint or significant smoke damage may be sufficient.

Question 13

R v Swain

Answer 13

To deliberately or purposely remove a sawn-off shotgun from a bag after being confronted by or called upon by a police constable amounts to a use of that firearm within the meaning of s 198A Crimes Act 1961.

Question 14

Fisher v R

Answer 14

It is necessary in order to establish a charge under section 198A(2) for the Crown to prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him because otherwise the element of mens rea of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.

Question 15

R v Skivington

Answer 15

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

Question 16

R v Lapier

Answer 16

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

Question 17

R v Cox (Possession)

Answer 17

Possession involves two elements. The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.

Question 18

R v Maihi

Answer 18

“It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing… and a threat of violence. Both must be present.” However the term “does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous…”

Question 19

Peneha v Police

Answer 19

It is sufficient that “the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort”.

Question 20

R v Joyce

Answer 20

“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”

Question 21

R v Galey

Answer 21

“Being together” in the context of s235(b) involves “two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.”

Question 22

R v Wellard

Answer 22

The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be.”

Question 23

R v Crossan

Answer 23

Taking away and detaining are “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 woman 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 24

R v Pryce

Answer 24

Detaining is an active concept meaning to “keep in confinement or custody”. This is to be contrasted to the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.

Question 25

R v Cox (Consent)

Answer 25

Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed… freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.”

Question 26

Mohi

Answer 26

The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or a taking accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out.

Question 27

R v Waaka

Answer 27

Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commences without the intent to have intercourse, but that intent is formed during the taking away, then that is sufficient for the purposes of the section.

Question 28

R v M

Answer 28

The Crown must prove that the accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he or she knew that the complainant was not consenting.

Question 29

R v Forrest and Forrest

Answer 29

“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.”

Question 30

List 3 ways to prove intent in a serious assault case

Answer 30

• 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)

Question 31

Define Maiming

Answer 31

Mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or of one of the senses.

Question 32

Define Disfigure

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Define Injure

Answer 33

To injure means to cause actual bodily harm (CA1961, S.2)

Question 34

Define Acting Recklessly

Answer 34

Acting recklessly involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.

Question 35

Cameron V R

Answer 35

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.