Violence offences - Case Law Flashcards
R v COLLISTER
Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent can be inferred can include:
- the offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
- The surrounding circumstances
- The nature of the act itself
Circumstantial evidence case law
R v COLLISTER
R v TAISALIKA
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainants head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent
Intent through injury case law
R v TAISALIKA
DPP v SMITH
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”
Grievous Bodily Harm case law
DPP v SMITH
R v WATERS
“A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will normally be evidenced by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the would will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal”
Wounds case law
R v WATERS
R v Rapana and Murray
The word disfigure covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
Disfigure case law
R v RAPANA and MURRAY
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
- the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed resulted; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard tot hat risk those actions were unreasonable
Recklessness case law
CAMERON v R and R v TIPPLE
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
Two fold test for intent case law
R v TIHI
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
Proof of commission case law
R v WATI
R v CROSSAN - mere threat…
Mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute “violent means”
R v DONOVAN
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It ned not be permanent but must, no doubt, be more than merely transitory or trifling
Bodily harm caselaw
R v DONOVAN
R v PEKEPO
A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passerby who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
Reckless discharge of a firearm caselaw
R v PEKAPO
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 crimes act 1961
Presenting a firearm at a Constable case law
R v SWAIN
Fisher v R
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
proof the defendant knew he was being arrested case law
FISHER v R
R v SKIVINGTON
Larcenry (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
Theft as an element of robbery case law
R v SKIVINGTON
R v LAPIER
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary
When robbery is complete case law
R v LAPIER
R v COX - possession
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 possession
Possession case law
R v COX
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”:
Connection between the violence and theft case law
R v MAIHI
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
violence case law
PENEHA v POLICE
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
physical proximity case law
R v JOYCE
R v GALEY
“Being together” in the context of S235b 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
Being together case law
R v GALEY
R v WELLARD
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”
Taking away case law
R v WELLARD
R v CROSSAN - taking away / detaining
Taking away and detaining are seperate 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
Taking away vs detaining case law
R v CROSSAN
R v PRYCE
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 hand over.
Detaining case law
R v PRYCE
R v COX - consent
Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement
Consent case law
R v COX
MOHI
The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or a taking accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out
When the offence of abduction is complete case law
MOHI
R v WAAKA
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
Intent in abduction cases case law
R v WAAKA
R v M
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
proving consent case law
R v M
R v FORREST and FORREST
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age
Proof of age case law
R v FORREST and FORREST
R v M
You must prove that the defendant intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he knew the complainant was not consenting
