Violence - Injuring with Intent Flashcards

1
Q

S189(1) Crimes Act 1961 - Injuring with Intent

What are the Ingredients?

What is the penalty?

A

Answer:

  1. With Intent
  2. To cause grievous bodily harm to any one
  3. Injures any person

Answer:
Penalty: Max 10 years imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

S189(2) Crimes Act 1961 - Injuring with Intent

What are the Ingredients?

What is the penalty?

A

Answer:

  1. With Intent
  2. To intent to injure any one
  3. Or with reckless disregard for the safety of others
  4. Injures any person

Answer:
Penalty: Max 5 years imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the difference between between subsection (1) and subsection (2) under s189 CA 1961?

A

Answer:
In s/s (1) the offender intends to cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) however the outcome is a lesser degree of harm than intended

In s/s (2) the offender intends only to injure the victim, or acts with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and in doing so injures the victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is Grievous Bodily Harm?

A

Answer:

It can be defined simply as “harm that is really serious”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was held in the case law of R v Harney?

A

Answer:
“Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustifiable risk.
In NZ it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue in the course of conduct regardless of risk”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

When recklessness is an element in an offence what must be proved?

A
Answer:
 - That the defendant consciously and deliberately ran 
   a risk (subjective test)
  • That the risk was one that was unreasonable to take
    in the circumstances as they were known to the
    defendant (objective test - based on whether a
    reasonable person would have taken the risk)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Explain the term “anyone” and “any person”

A

Answer:
The assaults discussed in this module are gender neutral.
A victim is a “person” and accepted by judicial notice or proved by circumstantial evidence

The age of the victim is not relevant but note that ‘assault on a child’ and ‘male assaults female’ (s194) require proof of age and gender

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How does the mens rea in s189 differ from s188?

A

Answer:
It doesn’t. The mens rea required for both sections is identical
The offences under this section differ from those in s188 only in the level of injury actually inflicted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the injury requirements in s189?

A

Answer:
If there is an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, it is immaterial whether GBH was done, so long as an injury, actual bodily harm in some way was inflicted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the meaning of Injure as defined in s2 of the Crimes Act 1961?

A

Answer:

To injure means to cause bodily harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the ingredients for s199 CA 1961 - Acid throwing

What is the penalty?

A

Answer:
1. With intent to injure or disfigure anyone

  1. Throws at or applies to any person
  2. Any corrosive or injurious substance

Answer: Max 14 years imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Is there a defence to charge under s192(2)?

Assaulting a Constable or any person acting in aid of any constable, or any person in the lawful execution of any process, with intent to obstruct the person so assaulted in the execution of his or her duty.

What case law did it relates to this?

What were the circumstances in that case law?

A

Answer: Yes.
Section 48, CA 1961 - defence of another

Answer:
R v Christensen

Answer:
The accused, when interfering with an arrest by a constable, held a honest belief that the constable was using excessive force takes a constable outside the scope of their lawful duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly