Violence

Question 1

R v Taisalika

Answer 1

(Intent, stabbed male in face with glass, claimed no intent, drunk, no memory)
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

(Grievous Bodily Harm)

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

Question 3

R v Waters

Answer 3

(Wounds)
“ 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, and it’s 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

(Disfigure)

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

Question 5

R v Donovan

Answer 5

(Bodily harm, male caned 17 yr old girl for sexual gratification)
‘ 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 6

R v Harney

Answer 6

(Convicted murder, stabbed male in stomach, claimed aiming for leg)
“ recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happened, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.”

Question 7

R v Tihi

Answer 7

(Aggravated wounding/injury, two fold test)
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 we likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it”

Question 8

R v Wati

Answer 8

(Aggravated wounding/injury, facilitate flight)
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 9

R v Pekepo

Answer 9

(Intent under S198)
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 10

R v Swain

Answer 10

(Use in any manner whatever)
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 11

Fisher v R

Answer 11

(Intent to resist lawful arrest or detention)
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 12

R v Skivington

Answer 12

(Claim of right defence, man demands wife’s owed wages at knife point from manager)
“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 13

R v Cox

Possession

Answer 13

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 possesion.

Question 14

R v Maihi

Answer 14

(Leather jacket, male said he liked it, handed over under pressure, later asked for it back, told he had to fight for it)
“ 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 15

Peneha v Police

Answer 15

(Violence, grabbed handbag, victim held on, arm twisted & pulled back, pain set in, she had to let go)
It is sufficient that “ the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal Freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort”.

Question 16

R v Joyce

Answer 16

(The victim was confronted by two or more persons acting in concert)
“the crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”

Question 17

R v Galey

Answer 17

(Female lured man out of bar, he got robbed by 1, GALEY observed & kicked victim once to feet, conviction quashed)
“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 18

R v Wellard

Answer 18

(Takes away, claimed to be cop, woman to accompany him, got into car before boy friend rescued her)
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 19

R v Crossan

Answer 19

(Took woman at gun point, detained her, charged with, “did take her away and detain her”)
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 20

R v Pryce

Answer 20

(Detains)
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 handover.

Question 21

R v Cox

Consent

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Mohi

Answer 22

(Abducted wife, he claimed Crown had to prove lack of consent to taking and the subsequent intercourse)
The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or taking accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out.

Question 23

R v Waaka

Answer 23

(Assist in carry victim away, whilst assist thought about also raping victim, then dismissed the idea)
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 24

R v M

Answer 24

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 25

R v Forest and Forest

Answer 25

(2 men charged sex inter with 14 yr girl, victim produced b/cert, defence claimed victim was not person named in cert, success appeal, girls age not adequately proved)
“ the best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.”

Question 26

Demanding with intent to steal, etc

S. 239(2) CA 1961, 7 yrs

Answer 26

1. 1 with menaces or by any threat
2. 2 demands any property
3. 3 from any persons
4. 4 with intent to steal it

Question 27

R v Sturm

Answer 27

Stupifies - in R v Sturm the defendant was convicted after administering alcohol, ecstasy and other drugs to a number of male victims in order to dull their senses sufficiently to enable him to sexually violate them.

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 anyway which may hinder an intended crime”.

‘stupifies’ 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 28

Assault with intent to rob
S. 236(1)(a) CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 28

1. 1 with intent to rob any person
   
   1. 2 causes GBH
   2. 3 to that person or any other person

Question 29

What differs between Wounding offence s. 188(1) and (2)?

Answer 29

Both relate to actions that result in Wounding, maiming, disfiguring or grievous bodily harm to the victim.

So the outcome is the same;the distinction between the two subsections is the offender’s intent.

Question 30

Psychiatric injury

Answer 30

Actual bodily harm can include psychiatric injury, if medical evidence confirms an identifiable clinical condition.

Question 31

What differs between injuring with intent offence s. 189(1) and (2)?

Answer 31

Both relate to actions that result in injury to the victim. So the outcome is the same;the distinction between the two subsections is the offender’s intent.

Question 32

To “aggravate”

Answer 32

To aggravate something is to make worse. In the context of s. 191, the offending is aggravated by the fact the offender caused harm to the victim in the process of commiting some other imprisonable offence.

Question 33

What constitutes “violent means”

Answer 33

A mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute “violent means” but when the person making the threat is brandishing a loaded revolver in circumstances that cause the victim to submit to his will in the belief that he will carry out his threat unless she does so, it can be said that she was rendered incapable of resistance by violent means just as effectually as if she were physically incapable.

Question 34

R v Lapier

Answer 34

(Tore earring from ear & immediately lost it within victim’s hair)
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is momentary.

Question 35

Wounding with intent to cause GBH
S. 188(1),CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 35

1. 1 with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
2. 2 to anyone
3. 3 wounds, or maims or disfigures or cause GBH
4. 4 any person

Question 36

Wounding with intent
S. 188(2), CA 1961
7 yrs

Answer 36

1. 1 with intent to injure anyone or with reckless disregard for the safety of others
2. 2 wounds or maims or disfigures or causes GBH
3. 3 to any person

Question 37

Robbery
s. 234(1),CA 1961
10 yrs

Answer 37

1. 1 theft
2. 2 accompanied by violence or threats of violence
3. 3 to any person or property
4. 4 used to extort the property stolen or prevent or overcome resistance to it being stolen

Question 38

Aggravated robbery
S. 235(a),CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 38

1. 1 robs any person
2. 2 and at the time or immediately before or immediately after the robbery
3. 3 causes GBH to any person

Question 39

Aggravated robbery
S. 235(b),CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 39

1. 1 being together with any other person or persons
2. 2 robs
3. 3 any person

Question 40

Aggravated robbery
S. 235(c),CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 40

1. 1 being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument
2. 2 robs
3. 3 any person

Question 41

Assault with intent to rob
S. 236 (1) (a), CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 41

1. 1 with intent to rob any person
2. 2 causes GBH
3. 3 to that person or any other person

Question 42

Assault with intent to rob
S. 236 (1)(b), CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 42

1. 1 with intent to rob any person
2. 2 being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument
3. 3 assaults that person or any other person

Question 43

Assault with intent to rob
S. 236 (1) (c), CA 1961
14 yrs

Answer 43

1. 1 with intent to rob any person
2. 2 being together with any other person or persons
3. 3 assaults that person or any other person

Question 44

Intent

Answer 44

In a criminal law context there are two specific types of intention in an offence. Firstly there must be an intention to commit the act and secondly, an intention to get a specific result.

Question 45

S.315 CA 1961

Answer 45

Authorises arrest, without warrant, of any person suspected of committing a breach of the peace, suspected of committing an offence punishable by imprisonment, or found to be disturbing the public peace or committing an act punishable by imprisonment.

Question 46

To ‘render someone incapable of resistance by violent means’ was held in R v Crossan to mean that:

Answer 46

A mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute violent means.

Question 47

International data indicates 50% of all ‘people trafficking victims
are children. What is the age of a ‘child’ for the purposes of prosecuting people trafficking?

Answer 47

under 18 years of age (Hyper-link, pg 18)

Question 48

The key difference between sections 188 and 189 of the CA 1961 is;

Answer 48

the outcome on the victim

Question 49

In relation to Kidnapping & Abduction, the terms ‘taking away’ and ‘detaining’ which of the following terms is correct?

Answer 49

Taking away & detaining are two separate and distinct acts giving rise to two different offences.

Question 50

R v Tihi it was held in proving an offence against section 191 the prosecution must satisfy a ‘two fold test’ in respect to intent

Answer 50

accused intended to facilitate the commission of a crime or had other intents specified in (a)(b)(c) and intended to cause specified harm to the victim or foresaw that others were likely to be put at risk of suffering that harm or reckless as to it.

Question 51

In providing the association between parties when considering a charge of Aggravated Robbery under s235(b), CA 1961, ‘being together with’ which statement is most correct?

Answer 51

in committing the robbery the defendant was part of the joint enterprise by two or more people who were physically present at the robbery.

Question 52

Explain the term “injurious substance or device provide an example in the context of s198 CA 1961 - Discharging firearm or doing Dangerous Act with intent

Answer 52

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 53

What is the statutory defence to a charge of blackmail under s237(2), CA 1961?

Answer 53

R v Marshall - An accused can avoid liability where he or she believes in an entitlement to obtain the benefit or to cause the loss, and objectively viewed, the threat is a reasonable and proper means for bringing about that obtaining or that causing of the loss. It will be for the jury to determine whether the means were reasonable and proper.

Question 54

What was held in the matter R v Waters in relation to the nature of a wound?

Answer 54

R v Waters - ‘A wound is the breaking in the continuity of the skin with the flow of blood and can be internal or external.

Question 55

One of three intents must be proven to establish a charge of Kidnapping s.209, CA 1961. What are the tree intents referred to in this section?

Answer 55

(a) Hold him/her for ransom or service; or
(b) Cause him/her to be confined or imprisoned; or
(c) Cause him/her to be sent or taken out of New Zealand

Question 56

What was held in the matter of R v Skivington regarding claim of right as a defence to Robbery?

Answer 56

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

Question 57

Would a charge under s198 fail if the officer was trespassing at the time the offence occurred and thus, not acting in the course of his lawful duty? If so, Why/Why not?

Answer 57

Yes a charge will fail under s198A because the officer must be “acting in the course of his/her duty”. An officer who is acting unlawfully, for example. Trespassing on private property without authority, cannot be said to be “acting in the course of his/her duty”.

Question 58

In s198B(1)(b), CA 1961, there is a requirement that the offender “has a firearm with him”. What was held in R v Kelt?

Answer 58

R v Kelt - 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 59

In proving intent in serious assault cases, additional circumstantial evidence may assist in the proving of the offender’s intent. Provide examples of what that may include?

Answer 59

• • PWET BUDD**
• Prior threats
• Whether any weapon used was opportunistic or puposely brought
• Evidence of premeditation
• The number of blows
• The body parts targeted by the offender (eg head, groin)
• The use of a weapon
• The degree of force used
• The degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg unconscious).

Question 60

Define the principle of “Transferred Malice” in relation to violence offences listing the appropriate case law to support your answer.

Answer 60

The Doctrine of transferred Malice - It is not necessary that the person suffer 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. This principle was applied in R v Hunt where the defendant intended to stab the property owner, but accidentally wounded the man’s servant instead.

Question 61

A guy threatening to give his neighbour ‘the bash’ unless the neighbour put $1000 in his letterbox. What is the offence committed? Explain your answer. What is the act, section of the offence.

Answer 61

Demanding with intent to steal, - S239(2), CA 1961
7 yrs imprisonment

Because the guy has threatened the neighbour that he would get the bash if he doesn’t place the $1,000 in his letter box, demanding it to be done. The $1,000 is the property of the neighbour who is a person and the guy intends to steal it from the neighbour once it’s in his letter box.

Question 62

Outline the ingredients for Demanding with intent to steal, s239(2), CA 1961 7yrs

Answer 62

1. 1 with menaces or by any threat
2. 2 demands any property
3. 3 from and persons
4. 4 with intent to steal it

Question 63

What are the two intents of blackmail?

Answer 63

• To cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
• To obtain any benefit or cause loss to any person

Question 64

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

Answer 64

Reactive investigation:
victim led & 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 & locate the traffickers, gather evidence & instigate proceedings against them.

Disruption investigation:
Appropriate in circumstances where the level or risk to the victim demands an immediate response, & pro-active or reactive approaches are not practicable options.

Question 65

Explain R v Taisalika in relation to intoxication and intent.

Answer 65

In R v Taisalika the defendant crashed a party and in an unprovoked attack struck the victim in the side of the head with a glass, causing a serious gash to the victim’s temple. The defendant, Taisalika argued unsuccessfully that he had been so intoxicated that he could not remember the incident, therefore 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.

R v Taisalika - The nature of the blow & the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

Question 66

What is the difference between migrant smuggling and people trafficking?

Answer 66

Migrant smuggling involves a person who has freely consented to being brought into NZ as an illegal immigrant and people trafficking involves a person who is brought into NZ by means of coercion and /or deception.

Question 67

Some chick befriended an old lady, chick finds out that the old lady has a lot of cash in her bank acc. Demands the lady to give up the pin number or she’ll tell her family not to have anything to do with her anymore:

Answer 67

Demands with intent to steal s239(1), CA 1961 14 yrs

Question 68

Secondary intent

Answer 68

Offender believes those consequences can happen.

Question 69

Circumstantial evidence:

Answer 69

Offender’s conduct and words during the incident.

Question 70

What was held in R v Lapier?

Answer 70

Robbery is complete the moment the property is taken. Even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

Question 71

What is the ingredients for using a firearm against a law enforcement officer - s198A(1), CA 1961 14 yrs

Answer 71

1. 1 Uses any firearm in any manner whatever
2. 2 Against any Constable, acting in the course of his or her duty
3. 3 Knowing that or Being reckless whether that person is a Constable so acting

Question 72

Example of a non-immediate harmful consequence (HIV) and support answer with case law (R v Mwai)

Answer 72

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

R v 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 GBH.

Question 73

Statutory defence for blackmail

Case law

Answer 73

Section 237(2)provides a defence to a charge of blackmail

In R v Marshall the court of appeal said “an accused can avoid liability where he or she believes in an entitlement to obtain the benefit or to cause the loss, and, objectively viewed, the threat is a reasonable and proper means for bringing about that obtaining or that causing of the loss. It will be for the Jury to determine whether the means were reasonable and proper.

Question 74

Aggravated robbery is robbery carried out by

Answer 74

• Using grievous bodily harm
• Two or more people
• Using an offensive weapon

Question 75

Assault with intent to rob occurs when

Answer 75

No property is taken but the offender has robbery as their intent

Question 76

The initial procedure for investigating robbery varies with the stage at which the offence is reported. You may be informed of it :

Answer 76

• before an intended robbery
• during or after the incident, when a raid alarm at the premises goes off
• after the offenders leave the scene of the crime

Question 77

Discharging a Firearm with Intent
Section 198(1)(a), Crimes Act 1961, 14 years

Answer 77

1. 1 - With intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm
2. 2 - Discharges any firearm, airgun or similar weapon
3. 3 - At any person

Question 78

Doing Dangerous Act with Intent
Section 198(1)(b), Crimes Act 1961, 14 years

Answer 78

1. 1 - With intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm
2. 2 - sends or delivers to any person or puts in any place
3. 3 - any explosive or injurious substance or device

Question 79

Doing Dangerous Act with Intent
Section 198(1)(c), Crimes Act 1961, 14 years

Answer 79

1. 1 - With intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm
2. 2 - Sets fire
3. 3 - To any property

Question 80

Uses any Firearm Against Law Enforcement Officer
Section 198A(1), Crimes Act 1961, 14 years

Answer 80

1. 1 - Uses any firearm in any manner whatever
2. 2 - Against any Constable or any traffic officer, or any prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty
3. 3 - Knowing that, or Being reckless whether or not that person is a Constable or traffic officer, or prison officer so acting

Question 81

Commission of an Imprisonable Offence with a Firearm
Section 198B(1)(a), Crimes Act 1961, 10 years

Answer 81

1. 1 - In committing any imprisonable offence

1. 2 - Uses any firearm

Question 82

Abduction
Section 208(a) or (b) or (c), Crimes Act 1961, 14 years

Answer 82

1. 1 - Unlawfully
2. 2 - Takes Away or Detains
3. 3 - A person
4. 4 - Without his or her consent or With his or her consent obtained by fraud or duress
5. 5 - With intent to
   (a) - marry him or her OR
   (b) - have sexual connection with him or her OR
   (c) - cause him or her to be married to or to have sexual connection with some other person

Question 83

Kidnapping 
Section 209 (a) or (b) or (c), Crimes Act 1961, 14 years

Answer 83

1. 1 - Unlawfully
2. 2 - Takes Away or Detains
3. 3 - A person
4. 4 - WIthout consent OR With consent obtained by fraud or duress
5. 5 - With intent to:
   (a) - To hold him or her for ransom or to service OR
   (b) - To cause him or her to be imprisoned or confined OR
   (c) - To cause him or her to be sent or taken out of NZ

Question 84

Assault with intent to rob

S. 236(1)(b) CA 1961, 14 yrs

Answer 84

1.1 with intent to rob any person
1.2 being armed with any offensive weapon or
instrument or anything appearing to be such a
weapon or instrument
1.3 assaults that person or any other person

Question 85

Assault with intent to rob

S. 236(1)(c) CA 1961, 14 yrs

Answer 85

1. 1 with intent to rob any person
   
   1. 2 being together with any other person or persons
   2. 3 assaults that person or any other person

Question 86

Unlawfully

Answer 86

“without lawful justification, authority or excuse”.

Question 87

Knowing

Answer 87

Simester and Brookbanks suggest knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”. They further premise that “the defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot ‘know’ something that is false”.

Question 88

Abduction of young person under 16
Section 210(3)(a), Crimes Act 1961

Answer 88

Section 210(3)(a), Crimes Act 1961
For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), it is immaterial whether the young person consents, or is taken or goes or is received at his her own suggestion.

Question 89

Abduction of young person under 16
Section 210(3)(b), Crimes Act 1961

Answer 89

Belief that person is over 16 is no defence
Section 210(3)(b), Crimes Act 1961
For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), it is immaterial whether the offender believes the young person to be of or over the age of 16.

Question 90

No presumption because of age

Section 127, Crimes Act 1961

Answer 90

No presumption of law because of age
Section 127, Crimes Act 1961
There is no presumption of law that a person is incapable of sexual connection because of his or her age.

Question 91

People claiming in good faith right to possession of young person under 16
Section 210A, Crimes Act 1961

Answer 91

A person who claims in good faith a right to the possession of a young person under the age of 16 years cannot be convicted of an offence against section 209 or section 210 because he or she gets possession of the young person.

Question 92

What was held in R v Crossan with regard to “taking away and detaining”?

Answer 92

“Taking away” and “detaining” are two separate and distinct acts giving rise to two different offences, and the prosecution should specify which of the acts is being alleged. Where there is evidence of both taking away and detaining, two charges should be filed.

Question 93

Define Consent as set out in R v Cox

Answer 93

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

Question 94

For a conviction under s210(1), Crimes Act 1961 the Crown must prove what?

Answer 94

1. The defendant took, enticed or detained a person under the age of 16 years;
2. The taking, enticement or detention was deliberate or intentional;
3. The taking, enticement or detention was from a person who had lawful care of the young person;
4. The defendant knew the other person had lawful care of the young person;
5. The taking, enticement or detention was “unlawful”; and
6. It was done with intent to deprive a parent, guardian” or other person having lawful care or charge of the young person” of possession of that young person.

Question 95

Smuggling migrants

Answer 95

Smuggling migrants
Section 98C, Crimes Act 1961
20 years, a fine not exceeding $500, 000, or both

(1) Every one is liable to the penalty stated in subsection (3) who arranges for an unauthorised migrant to enter New Zealand or any other state, if he or she -
(a) does so for a material benefit; and
(b) either know that the person is, or is reckless as to whether the person is, an unauthorised migrant

Question 96

Trafficking in Persons

Answer 96

Trafficking in Persons
Section 98D, Crimes Act 1961
20 years, a fine not exceeding $500, 000, or both

(1) Every person is liable to the penalty stated in subsection (2) who arranges, organises or procures -
(a) the entry of a person into, or the exit of a person out of, New Zealand or any other State -
(i) for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the person; or
(ii) knowing that the entry or exit of the person involves 1 or more acts of coercion against the person, 1 or more acts of deception of the person, or both
(b) the reception, recruitment, transport, transfer, concealment, or harbouring of a person in New Zealand or any other State -
(i) for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the person; or
(ii) knowing that the reception, recruitment, transport, transfer, concealment, or harbouring of the person involves 1 or more acts of coercion against the person, 1 or more acts of deception of the person, or both.

Question 97

Differences of Smuggling migrants and Trafficking in persons

Answer 97

The differences between Smuggling migrants and Trafficking in persons are:

• consent [in trafficking consent is absent, in migrant smuggling consent is present]
• the purpose of the travel or movement [in trafficking exploitation based i.e. victim’s sexuality, labour or organs, for profit or gain, in migrant smuggling transportation based for profit]
• the relationship between the person moved and the people enabling the movement [in trafficking Victim - Exploiter, in migrant smuggling Buyer - Supplier]
• violence, intimidation or coercion [in trafficking a necessary and common occurrence, in smuggling unlikely but may happen due to lack of care, overcrowding]
• liberty [in trafficking often deprived, in migrant smuggling generally not severely so.
• profit [in trafficking primarily derived from ongoing exploitation of the victim, in migrant smuggling solely derived as payment for the movement of the individual]

Question 98

Is prior consent from the Attorney-General required to prosecute an offence under sections 98C [smuggling] or 98D [Trafficking]

Answer 98

Attorney-General’s consent to prosecutions required
Section 98F of the Crimes Act 1961

The prior consent of the Attorney-General is required to prosecute an offence of people trafficking or migrant smuggling against sections 98C [smuggling] or 98D [Trafficking]

Question 99

R v Kelt

Answer 99

R v Kelt - 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 100

S194, CA 1961 require proof of age?

Answer 100

Yes - The offences of ‘assault on a child’ and ‘male assaults female’ (s194) require proof age and gender respectively.

Question 101

Using a firearm to resist arrest
Sec 198A(2),CA 1961
10 years

Answer 101

1. 1 Used any firearm
2. 2 in any manner whatever
3. 3 with intent to resist lawful arrest or detention of themselves or any other person

Question 102

Firearm

Answer 102

Section 2, Arms Act 1983

Means anything from which any shot, bullet, missile or other projectile can be discharged by force of explosive

Question 103

Explosive

Answer 103

Section 2, ARMS ACT 1983

explosive—

(a)

means any substance or mixture or combination of substances which in its normal state is capable either of decomposition at such rapid rate as to result in an explosion or of producing a pyrotechnic effect; and

(b)

without limiting paragraph (a), includes gunpowder, nitroglycerine, dynamite, gun-cotton, blasting powder, fulminate of mercury or of other metals, coloured flares, fog signals, fuses, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges, and ammunition of all descriptions

Question 104

Maims

Answer 104

will involve mutilating, crippling or disabling part of the body so victim is deprived permanently of the use of a limb or one of the senses. Needs to be some degree of permanence.

Question 105

Disfigures

Answer 105

to disfigure means to deform or deface; to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person. R v Rapana and Murray - the word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 106

Injures

Answer 106

means to cause actual bodily harm S2, CA 1961
R v Donovan - Bodily harm includes any hurt of 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 107

Section 198B(1)(b), define “having a firearm with him”

Answer 107

The offender must knowingly have the firearm with them, mere possession is insufficient.

Question 108

Define injurious substance or device

Answer 108

The term covers a range of things capable of causing harm to a person, for example a letter containing anthrax powder mailed to a political target.

Question 109

Being together with

Answer 109

There must be proof that, in committing the robbery, the defendant was part of a joint enterprise by two or more persons who were physically present at the robbery. Each must share an intent to steal using their collective force should that be necessary and each must play some active role in the robbery.

Question 110

What are the factors that increase the charge from a robbery to being an aggravated robbery?

Answer 110

(a) robs any person and, at the time of , or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery causes GBH to any person, OR
(b) being together with any other person or persons, robs any person, OR
(c) being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, robs any person.

Question 111

Police and Parker

Answer 111

(defendant confronted by police, produced loaded shotgun and pointed at police, struggle ensued, offender finger on trigger, weapon thrown to ground without being fired)

Court suggested to ‘use in any manner whatever’ is to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and would include presenting it.

Question 112

Constable

Answer 112

Sec 4 Policing Act 2008

Constable is a police employee who holds the office of constable (whether appointed as a constable under the Police Act 1958 or this Act)

and includes a constable who holds any level of position within the New Zealand Police

Question 113

Knowing

Answer 113

Simester and Brookbanks

Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”

…. The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot “know” something that is false.

Question 114

Intent

Answer 114

In a criminal law context there are two specific types of intention in an offence. Firstly there must be an intention to commit the act and secondly, and intention to get a specific result.

Question 115

What was held in R v Wells?

Answer 115

The person suffering grievous bodily harm need not be the person robbed.

The Court in R v Wells held that there is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within the section.

Question 116

Five phase investigation of blackmail

Answer 116

1. Initial report phase
2. Mobilisation phase
3. Consolidation phase
4. Investigation and operational phase, including :investigation and identification of offender and threats;negotiation;payment;intervention/arrest
5. Reactive phase (may include prosecution)