Case Law

Question 1

R v Collister

Answer 1

Intent can be inferred from the words and actions, said or made before, during or after the event, the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the act itself.

Question 2

R v Taisalika

Answer 2

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
Ruled intoxication/loss of memory not the same as lack of intent at the time.

Question 3

DPP v Smith

Answer 3

‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’

Question 4

R v Waters

Answer 4

A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. May be internal or external.

Question 5

R v Rapana and Murray

Answer 5

Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 6

Cameron v R

Answer 6

Recklessness is established if:
(a) the Defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable.

Question 7

R v Tipple

Answer 7

Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.

Question 8

R v McArthur

Answer 8

‘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 transitory and trifling.

Question 9

R v Sturm(20)

Answer 9

Under Section CR1961 S191(1)(a) it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed.

Question 10

R v Wati

Answer 10

There must be proof of the commission or attempted comission of a crime either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

Question 11

R v Tihi

Answer 11

It must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specific harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.

Question 12

R v Sturm

Answer 12

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

Question 13

R v Crossan

Answer 13

Incapable of resistance includes a powerless of the will as well as a physical incapacity.

Question 14

R v Smith(5)

Answer 14

Common sense requires that ‘danger to life’ should be interpreted as “danger to the life of some person other than the setter of the fire”

Question 15

R v Morley

Answer 15

Loss is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the offence has been diminished or impaired.

Question 16

R v Archer

Answer 16

Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary harm or permanent or temporary impairment to its use or value.

Question 17

Mulcahy v R

Answer 17

A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself.

Question 18

R v Ring

Answer 18

The offenders intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the Victim. Although the victims pocket was empty, he is still liable for attempted theft.

Question 19

R v Skivington

Answer 19

Claim of right is a defence to robbery.

Question 20

R v Lapier

Answer 20

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if posession by the thief is only monentary.

Question 21

R v Peat

Answer 21

As in the case of theft, the immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence, subject always to the necessary intent existing at the time of taking.

Question 22

R v Maihi

Answer 22

It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a 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.

Question 23

Peneha v Police

Answer 23

It is sufficient that the Defendants actions forcibly interfere with personal freedom or a violent action tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort

Question 24

R v Broughton

Answer 24

Threats may be direct or veiled, conveyed by conduct or words of both. Absense of fear by the Victim does not negate the threat.

Question 25

R v Mitchell

Answer 25

There may be occasions where property is handed over to a thief as a result of threats previously made but still operating on the mind of the victim at the time… the question will be one of fact and degree in each case.

Question 26

R v Joyce

Answer 26

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

Question 27

R v Galey

Answer 27

Being together involves two or more people having common intention to use their combinded force in a crime.

Question 28

R v Bentham

Answer 28

What is possessed must be a thing, a persons hand or fingers are not a thing.

i.e fingers under the shirt pretending to be a firearm

Question 29

R v Cox (Possession)

Answer 29

Two elements, mental and physical

Mental element - intention and knowledge

Physical element - Custody and control

Question 30

Cook v R

Answer 30

Police entered a house under s15 S&S on the basis that a car was parked outside an address that was invovled in an agg rob.

it was held that the threshold for RGTB that evidence would be CADD was not there as offence happened 9 hours earlier and house was under surveillance and warrant should have been obtained.

Question 31

Kalekale v R

Answer 31

It is only common sense for Police to believe that the more time passed, the greater the chance for any evidence of the offence to be dispersed or destroyed.

Question 32

R v Rua

Answer 32

The words ‘produce’ or ‘manufacture’ in s6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.

In R v Rua, meth in suspension in a two-layered liquid, although not capable of being used in that state, was held to have been manufactured.

Question 33

R v Strawbridge

Answer 33

It is not necessary for the crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absense of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

Question 34

R v Maginnis

Answer 34

Supply involves more than transfer of physical control, it includes enabling the recipient to apply the thing to purposes for which he desires.

Question 35

R v Brown(1)

Answer 35

Offers to supply a drug that he has on hand

Offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date.

Offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply.

Offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug.

Question 36

Police v Emerali

Answer 36

The serious offence of possessing narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.

(It is necessary for the drugs found to be of a useable quantity)

Question 37

R v During

Answer 37

An offer is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs.

Question 38

R v Brown

Answer 38

Offer to supply exists when offer is made with intention that it be understood and genuine.

Question 39

R v Forrest and Forrest

Answer 39

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

Question 40

R v Koroheke

Answer 40

The genitalia comprise the reproduction organs, interior and exterior, they include the vulva and the labia, both interior and exterior, at the opening of the vagina

Question 41

R v Cook

Answer 41

To be effective, consent must be “real, genuine or true consent, and that it may be conveyed by words or conduct or both”

Question 42

R v Cox (consent)

Answer 42

Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed. It must be freely and voluntarily given by a person in a postion to form a rational judgment”

Question 43

Police v Parker

Answer 43

‘Use in any manner whatever’ is to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and to present a rifle too, I think, is equivalent to or means the same thing.

Question 44

R v Pekepo

Answer 44

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.

Question 45

R v Kelt

Answer 45

Having a firearm “with him” requires a very close physical link and a degree of immediate control over the weapon

Question 46

Tuli v Police

Answer 46

Prima Facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absense of evidence to the contrary

Question 47

R v Crossan(1)

Answer 47

Taking away and detaining are seperate and distinct offences.

Question 48

R v Wellard

Answer 48

Kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty coupled with carrying away from the place where the Victim wants to be

Question 49

R v Pryce

Answer 49

Detaining is an active concept meaning “to keep in confinement or custody”.

This is not to be contrasted to the passive concept of ‘harbouring’ or mere failure to hand over

Question 50

R v Wellard(1)

Answer 50

The offender gained the Victims consent fraudulently by representing himself as a Police officer, which he was not.

Question 51

R v Mohi

Answer 51

The offence is committed at the time of taking away so long as there is the necessary intent.

It has never been regarded as necessary that the crown should show the intent was carried out.

Question 52

R v Chartrand

Answer 52

a 43 year old man enticed a 8YO boy away from where he was playing and took him to a riverbank for photographs.

His argument was that his intention was not to deprive the parents but just to take pics.

It was held that ‘whether the defendant may have had an innocent motive, or length of intended interference is beside the point’

Question 53

R v Gutuama

Answer 53

Under the objective test the crown must prove that no reasonable person in the accused shoes could have thought that the complianant was consenting.

Question 54

R v Court

Answer 54

Idecency is conduct that right-thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of the Victim.

Question 55

R v Dunn

Answer 55

Indecency must be judged in light of the time, place and circumstances. It must be something more than trifling

Question 56

R v Leeson

Answer 56

The Definition of ‘indecent assault’ is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency

Question 57

Hayes v R

Answer 57

A pecuniary advantage is anything that enhances the accused financial position. it is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage.

A valuable consideration is anything capable of being valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or any other kind, in short; money or moneys worth

Question 58

Hayes v R(1)

Answer 58

An unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one.

An unsuccessful use must not be equated conceptually with an attempted one.

Question 59

R v Misic

Answer 59

Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record

Question 60

R v Morley(1)

Answer 60

An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception.

Question 61

R v Morley (2)

Answer 61

The prosection must prove that:
- The loss was caused by a deception
- It was reasonably foreseeable some more than trivial loss would occur, but
- The prosecution need not prove the loss was intentionally caused

Thus, there must be loss to “any other person” but there is no requirement that there be any benefit to anyone.