Violence case law 2020 Flashcards
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
DPP v Smith
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
R v Waters
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 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 may be evidence of internal breaking of tissue.
R v Rapana and Murray
The word ‘disfigure’ covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.
R v Donovan
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, it need not be permanent, but be more than merely transitory and trifling.
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. It involves proof that the consequence complained of could well have happened, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
R v Tihi
In addition to one of the specified intents outlines in 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 expose others to the risk of suffering it.
R v Wati
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.
R v Pekepo
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.
R v Swain
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 S198A CA1961
Fisher v R
To establish a charge under section 198A(2), the Crown must prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him because otherwise the mens rea element of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.
R v Skivington
Theft is an elect of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, then it negates one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox
Possession involves two elements, 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 awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.
R v Maihi
In ‘accompany’ there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and the treat of violence. Both must be present however they do not have to be contemporaneous.
