Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent
DPP v Smith
Bodily harm needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”
R v Waters
A wound is the breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood, and may be internal or external
R v Rapana and Murray
The word “disfigure” covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
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 be more than merely transitory or trifling
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) The defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that: (i) his/her actions would bring about the proscribed result, and/or, (ii) the proscribed circumstances existed, and
(b) Having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable
R v Tihi
Aggravates assaults
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in (a) - (c), it must be shown that the offender either meant to cause the specified harm, or foresaw that his actions were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.
(Two-fold intent)
R v Wati
Aggravated Assault
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
R v Pekepo
Discharges firearm etc
A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.
R v Swain
Uses Firearm Against Law Enforcement
To deliberately or purposefully 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 section 198A Crimes Act 1961
Fisher v R
Using Firearm Against Law Enforecement, sub (2)
In order to charge under s198A(2), it is necessary to prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him, otherwise mens rea cannot be established
R v Skivington
Robbery - claim of right as a defence
Theft is an element of robbery and if the honest belief that a person has claim of right is a defence to theft, which is a necessary element, then the full offence has not been committed
R v Lapier
Robbery - takes
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary
R v Maihi
Robbery - accompany
In regards to ‘accompany’, there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. Both must be present but need not be contemporaneous
Peneha v Police
Robbery - violence
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.
