Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Modules > Violence offences - Case Law > Flashcards

Violence offences - Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

R v COLLISTER

A

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

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

Circumstantial evidence case law

A

R v COLLISTER

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

R v TAISALIKA

A

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

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

Intent through injury case law

A

R v TAISALIKA

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

DPP v SMITH

A

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

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

Grievous Bodily Harm case law

A

DPP v SMITH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v WATERS

A

“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”

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

Wounds case law

A

R v WATERS

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

R v Rapana and Murray

A

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

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

Disfigure case law

A

R v RAPANA and MURRAY

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

Cameron v R

A

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

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

Recklessness case law

A

CAMERON v R and R v TIPPLE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v TIHI

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Two fold test for intent case law

A

R v TIHI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v WATI

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Proof of commission case law

A

R v WATI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v CROSSAN - mere threat…

A

Mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute “violent means”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v DONOVAN

A

‘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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Bodily harm caselaw

A

R v DONOVAN

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v PEKEPO

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Reckless discharge of a firearm caselaw

A

R v PEKAPO

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v SWAIN

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Presenting a firearm at a Constable case law

A

R v SWAIN

24
Q

Fisher v R

A

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

25
Q

proof the defendant knew he was being arrested case law

A

FISHER v R

26
Q

R v SKIVINGTON

A

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

27
Q

Theft as an element of robbery case law

A

R v SKIVINGTON

28
Q

R v LAPIER

A

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary

29
Q

When robbery is complete case law

A

R v LAPIER

30
Q

R v COX - possession

A

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

31
Q

Possession case law

A

R v COX

32
Q

R v MAIHI

A

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”:

33
Q

Connection between the violence and theft case law

A

R v MAIHI

34
Q

PENEHA v POLICE

A

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

35
Q

violence case law

A

PENEHA v POLICE

36
Q

R v JOYCE

A

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

37
Q

physical proximity case law

A

R v JOYCE

38
Q

R v GALEY

A

“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

39
Q

Being together case law

A

R v GALEY

40
Q

R v WELLARD

A

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”

41
Q

Taking away case law

A

R v WELLARD

42
Q

R v CROSSAN - taking away / detaining

A

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

43
Q

Taking away vs detaining case law

A

R v CROSSAN

44
Q

R v PRYCE

A

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.

45
Q

Detaining case law

A

R v PRYCE

46
Q

R v COX - consent

A

Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement

47
Q

Consent case law

A

R v COX

48
Q

MOHI

A

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

49
Q

When the offence of abduction is complete case law

A

MOHI

50
Q

R v WAAKA

A

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

51
Q

Intent in abduction cases case law

A

R v WAAKA

52
Q

R v M

A

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

53
Q

proving consent case law

A

R v M

54
Q

R v FORREST and FORREST

A

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age

55
Q

Proof of age case law

A

R v FORREST and FORREST

56
Q

R v M

A

You must prove that the defendant intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he knew the complainant was not consenting

Modules (36 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions