VIOLENCE - Case Law Flashcards
R v SKIVINGTON
R v SKIVINGTON
“Larceny [or theft] is an ingredient 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 ingredients in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”
R v LAPIER
R v LAPIER
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v MAIHI
R v MAIHI
“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 …”
PENEHA v POLICE
PENEHA v POLICE
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”.
R v BROUGHTON
R v BROUGHTON
A threat of violence is “the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless
the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.”
R v JOYCE
R v JOYCE
“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”
R v GALEY
R v GALEY
“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.”
R v MOHAN & R v WAAKA
R v MOHAN
Intent involves “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence
R v WAAKA
A “fleeting or passing thought” is not sufficient; there must be a “firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act”
R v TAISALIKA
R v TAISALIKA
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.
DPP v SMITH
DPP v SMITH
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
R v WATERS
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.
R v DONOVAN
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 must, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.
R v HARNEY
R v HARNEY
“[Recklessness involves] foresight of dangerous consequences that could well
happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.”
R v TIHI
R v TIHI
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”.
