Violence Practice Flashcards

1
Q

Define ‘incapable of resistance’

A

A person is rendered incapable of resistance by violent means just as effectual as if they were physically incapable.

Eg. someone intending to rape a victim and presenting a loaded revolver at her head.

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

Define ‘being together with’ and give CL

A

R v Joyce: The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.

Each much share an intent to steal using their collective force should that be necessary and each must play some active role in the robbery.

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

What is an ‘accusation’?

A

It normally refers to an allegation that the defended person is guilty of of a criminal conduct.

R v Kirby (not a must know): A Detective who claimed to have a warrant for the victim and that he’d be going to jail for 10yrs for burglary unless he offered the detective money. These comments amounted to an ‘accusation’ or ‘threat to accuse’.

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

Define recklessness and CL:

A

R v Harney:

Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In NZ 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.

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

Define recklessness and CL:

A

R v Harney:

Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In NZ 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.

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

Define ‘stupifies’

A

To cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person, which really seriously interferes with that persons mental or physical ability to act in a any way which might hinder an intended crime.

It also includes circumstance where the administration of drugs led to dis-inhibition and stimulated uncharacteristic behaviour.

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

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

A

It means the person suffering the harm is not necessarily the intended victim. Where the defendant makes a mistake of identity or accidentally inflicting harm on another, he is still criminally responsible under the ‘Doctrine of Transferred Malice’.

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

What are the three intents for kidnapping?

A

(a) with intent to hold him or her for ransom or to service; or
(b) with intent to cause him or her to be confined or imprisoned; or
(c) with intent to cause him or her to be sent or taken out of New Zealand.

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

Define ‘injurious substance’ and give an example:

A

Its a harmful substance to a human?

  1. anthrax powder
  2. boiling water
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does R v Waters say a wound is?

A

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 which evidences the separation of the tissues may be internal.

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

Explain the CL in Skivington:

A

Theft is an elect of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, ten it negates one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.

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

What are some examples of circumstantial evidence when proving intent in a serious assault case?

A
  • prior threats
  • evidence of premeditation
  • the use of a weapon
  • whether any weapon used was opportunist or purposely bought
  • the number of blows
  • the degree of force used
  • the body parts targeted by the offender (eg the head)
  • the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg. unconscious)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the statutory defence for S237 (blackmail)?

A

A belief by the person making the threat that they are entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss is not in itself a defence to a charge under 237(1), unless the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.

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

Jim sees Billy with a new iPhone which he wants to buy. He tells Billy to give him the phone to play with or else he will punch him in the head. Billy gives him the phone and runs away. What is Jims criminal liability?

A) Robbery
B) Demands with intent to steal
C) No liability under Crimes Act

A

I’d do A or B:

A: Robbery: Threat of violence (punch in the head) to any person (Billy) used to extort the property stolen (iPhone).

B: Demands with intent to steal: By any threat (to punch in the head) demands any property with the intent to steal it (iPhone).

Used A is CS for the same situation so A…

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

A child in the legal custody of her mother has an argument with her mother. She calls her father and tells him to pick her up. He agrees and comes and picks her up. What offence the father has committed?

A) Abduction of a child S210 CA ‘61 as he has deprived the mother of possession.
B) Nil because he did not intend to deprive the mother permanently of possession.
C) Nil because the daughter wanted her father to pick her up.

A

B) Nil because he did not intend to deprive the mother permanently of possession.

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

What is S188(2)?

A

(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to injure anyone, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.

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

What are the ingredients for ‘demanding with intent to steal’?

A

(1) 14 years who, without claim of right, by force or with any threat, compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit.
(2) 7 years who, with menaces or by any threat, demands any property from any persons with intent to steal it.

18
Q

What are the ingredients for ‘assault with intent to rob’?

A

1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to rob any person,—
(a) causes grievous bodily harm to that person or any other person; or
(b) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, assaults that person or any other person; or
(c) being together with any other person or persons, assaults that person or any other person.

(2) Every one who assaults any person with intent to rob that person or any other person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

19
Q

What are the intents of Blackmail?

A

Intent to:

(a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
(b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.

20
Q

What are the three main investigative approach options for people trafficking and migrant smuggling?

A
  1. Reactive investigation: victim led, they or someone on their behalf have approached Police
  2. Proactive investigation: Police led. Combo of standard investigation techniques supplemented by intel resources to identify and locate the traffickers
  3. Disruptive investigation: Appropriate in circumstances where the level of risk to the victim demands an immediate response, and pro-active or reactive approaches are not practicable options

In R v Strum: the defendant was convicted after administering alcohol, ecstasy and other drugs to number of male victims in order to dull their senses sufficiently to enable him to sexually violate them

21
Q

When referring to S188, what is meant by “not limited to immediate harm”?

A

The link between cause and effect is a physical one not one of time. The consequences may be delayed, but they are consequences nonetheless. I.e HIV > AIDS (although now you can get medication so will need to be assessed each time).

22
Q

Explain R v Taisalika in relation to intoxication and intent

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.

He stated he was too intoxicated to have the necessary intent.

23
Q

What was held in R v Skivington?

A

Theft is an elect of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, ten it negates one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.

24
Q

What is the difference between migrant smuggling and people trafficking:

A

Migrant smuggling involves a person who has freely consented to being brought into NZ as an illegal immigrant and people trafficking involves a person who is brought into NZ by means of coercion and/or deception.

25
Q

What is the difference between S188 (1) and (2)?

A

(1) - the offender intends to cause GBH
(2) - the offender only intends to injure the victim, although the actual outcome is greater degree of harm than he anticipated. It allows for an alternative mens Rea element involving “reckless disregard for the safety of others”

26
Q

Lucy befriended an old lady, Lucy finds out that the old lady has a lot of cash in her bank acc. Lucy demands the lady to give up the pin number or she’ll tell her family not to have anything to do with her anymore. What is Lucy liable for?

A

Demands with intent to steal S239 CA1961.

239 Demanding with intent to steal, etc
(1) 14 years who, without claim of right, by force or with any threat, compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit.

(2) 7 years who, with menaces or by any threat, demands any property from any persons with intent to steal it.

27
Q

Lucy befriended an old lady, Lucy finds out that the old lady has a lot of cash in her bank acc. Lucy demands the lady to give up the pin number or she’ll tell her family not to have anything to do with her anymore. What is Lucy liable for?

A

Demands with intent to steal S239 CA1961.

239 Demanding with intent to steal, etc
(1) 14 years who, without claim of right, by force or with any threat, compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit.

(2) 7 years who, with menaces or by any threat, demands any property from any persons with intent to steal it.

28
Q

Lucy befriended an old lady, Lucy finds out that the old lady has a lot of cash in her bank acc. Lucy demands the lady to give up the pin number or she’ll tell her family not to have anything to do with her anymore. What is Lucy liable for?

A

Demands with intent to steal S239 CA1961.

239 Demanding with intent to steal, etc
(1) 14 years who, without claim of right, by force or with any threat, compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter, or destroy any document capable of conferring a pecuniary advantage with intent to obtain any benefit.

(2) 7 years who, with menaces or by any threat, demands any property from any persons with intent to steal it.

29
Q

What is the difference between ‘detain’ and ‘takes away’? (the CL that relates)

A

R v Crossan: 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.

30
Q

What are the two intents for recklessness?

A
  1. that the defendant consciously and deliberately ran a risk (subject test)
  2. 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)
31
Q

What are some examples of circumstantial evidence when proving intent? (not serious)

A
  • the offenders actions and words before, during, and after the event
  • the surrounding circumstances
  • the nature of the act itself
32
Q

What is the difference between ‘wounding’ vs GBH’?

A

The terms ‘wounds’, ‘maims’ and ‘disfigures’ refer to the type of injury caused, whereas the term ‘grievous’ refers to the degree or seriousness of the injury.

Eg. Stabbing a person in the arm once vs stabbing a person in the chest 5 times.

33
Q

Define ‘claim of right’:

A

claim of right, in relation to any act, means a belief at the time of the act in a proprietary or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed, although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed

34
Q

R v Lapier

A

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

35
Q

What are the ingredients of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer.?

A

(1) 14 years
- uses any firearm in any manner whatever against any constable,
- or any traffic officer,
- or any prison officer,
- acting in the course of his or her duty knowing that, or being reckless whether or not, that person is a constable or a traffic officer or a prison officer so acting.

(2) 10 years
- uses any firearm in any manner whatever
- with intent to resist the lawful arrest or detention of himself or herself or of any other person

36
Q

What are the factors that increase the charge from a robbery to being an aggravated robbery?

A

Robbery is just theft accompanied by violence.

Aggravated robbery have one of the following factors:

(a) at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery, causes grievous bodily harm to any person; or
(b) being together with any other person or persons, robs any person; or
(c) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, robs any other person

37
Q

What must prosecution prove against someone who abducts a young person under Sec 210(2):

A

i. The accused received a person under age 16 AND
ii. The receiving was deliberate or intentional AND
iii. The accused knew that the young person had been unlawfully taken, enticed away or detained by another, from a person who had lawful possession of the young person AND
iv. The accused intended by reason of the receiving to deprive the person with lawful care of possession of that young person

38
Q

What was held in R v Joyce?

A

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

39
Q

What was held in 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.

40
Q

Scenario:

Billy and John drinking in the skate park.
They see Simon with his skate board.
Approach him, Billy corners him and demands for his skateboard or will smash his sister sitting nearby
Simon tells Billy to fuck off
John punches Simon in the face, Simon falls
Simon gets up and takes off with his skate board
Billy chases him down the road but doesn’t catch him

What are Billy and John liable for?

A

Assault with intent to rob being together with: Sec 236(1)(c)

41
Q

Scenario:

Bill and Jane in a defacto relationship
Jane works at a cafe
Bill rocks up at the cafe because he thinks that she’s being unfaithful
Bill yells at everyone to get out whilst throwing chairs around
Everyone evacuates and Jane tries to run out the door
Bill grabs her, throws her on the floor then locks the door
Jane gets up and runs towards the back door
Bill grabs her and locks the back door
Bill abuses and assaults Jane for about 30mins in the cafe

What is Bill liable for?

A

Kidnapping: Sec 209 (b) - (confine not imprisoned)

42
Q

What is held in R V Joyce?

A) Two people in the joint enterprise present at the time of the robbery.
B) Two people in a joint enterprise actively involved in the robbery

A

A) Two people in the joint enterprise present at the time of the robbery.

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