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

R v Rapana and Murray

Hint Disfigures

Answer 2

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

Question 3

DPP v Smith

Hint bodily harm

Answer 3

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

Question 4

R v Waters

Hint
Definition of a wound

Answer 4

“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 5

R v Donovan

Hint
Bodily Harm

Answer 5

‘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

Hint Recklessness

Answer 6

“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 7

Section 188, Crimes Act 1961

Wounding with intent

Answer 7

1) : Everyone with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.
2) Everyone with intent to injure anyone, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.

Question 8

Three ways to prove intent?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

In serious assault cases, additional circumstantial evidence that may assist in proving an offender’s intent may include:

Answer 9

• 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 (eg the head)
• the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg unconscious).

Question 10

Section 189, Crimes Act 1961

Injuring with intent

Answer 10

(1) Every one with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, injures any person.
(2) Every one with intent to injure any one, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, injures any person.

Question 11

Section 191, Crimes Act 1961

Aggravated wounding or injury

Answer 11

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who with intent—
(a) To commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence; or
(b) To avoid the detection of himself or of any other person in the commission of any imprisonable offence; or
(c) 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—
wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person, or stupefies or renders unconscious any person, or by any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance.

Question 12

Incapable of resistance. R v Crossan. The best description

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Being together with. R v Joyce. The best description (physically present together).

Answer 13

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