Case Law Flashcards
(38 cards)
Case Law: Intent
R v Collister
Intent can be inferred by actions and words, said and made, before, during or after the event, the surrounding circumstances, and the nature of the act itself.
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and the gash in which it produced points strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
Case law: Indirect Assault
R v Hunt
the defendant, while breaking into another man’s stables, was caught by the property owner and his servant. Hunt attempted to stab the property owner with a knife, but in the ensuing struggle he unintentionally
inflicted a superficial cut to the servant’s wrist.
He was found guilty of wounding the servant, as although the cut was “slight and not in a vital part” his intent had nevertheless been to cause serious harm
(albeit to the property owner and not to the servant).
Case Law: Grevious Bodily Harm
DPP v Smith
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less
than “really serious”.
Case Law: Psychiatric Injury
Owen v Residential Health Management Unit
the Court highlighted that “bodily harm” may include psychiatric injury but does not include mere emotions such as fear, distress, panic, or a hysterical or nervous condition.
Case Law: Psychiatric Injury (2)
R v Donaldson
It may be that a charge under s188 can be justified where there has been relevant psychiatric injury but the victim is unaware of the assault.
An example is R v Donaldson where the defendant performed indecent acts on the victim while he was unconscious. The victim had no recollection of the
events but, once he learned of them, they had a profound psychological impact on him.
Case Law: Non-immediate Harm
R v Mwai
In R v Mwai the defendant faced multiple counts in relation to two women who he infected with HIV, and several others whom he put at risk, through unprotected sex.
In affirming his conviction for “causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard for the safety of others”, the Court of Appeal held that section 188 is not limited to the immediate harmful consequences of the offender’s actions, such as external assault or injury from a blow of some kind.
Expert medical evidence adduced at the time, that HIV follows “a steady relentless progression” leading to AIDS and then inevitably to death, was sufficient to establish that the defendant had caused grievous bodily harm.
Case Law: Wounding
R v Waters
It was held that a wound involves the breaking of the skin and the flowing of blood, either externally or internally.
Case Law: Disfigures
R v Rapana and Murray
The word disfigures covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
Case Law: Bodily Harm
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 it must be more than trifling.
Case Law: Recklessness
Cameron v R
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
Case Law: Recklessness Part 2
R v Tipple
The general rule of ‘recklessness’ is to be given the subjective meaning which requires that the accused had conscious appreciation of the relevant risk.
Case Law: Aggravated Wounding
R v Tihi
In addition to the specific intents outlined in paragraph (a), (b) and (c), it must be shown that the offender either 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.
Case Law: Facilitate Flight
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.
Case Law: Stupefies
R v Sturm
In R v Sturm the defendant was convicted for after administering alcohol, Ecstasy and other drugs to a number of male victims, in order to dull their senses sufficiently, to enable him to sexually violate them.
The Court in this matter held that to ‘stupefy’ means to ‘cause an effect on
the mind or nervous system of a person, which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might
hinder an intended crime’.
Case Law: Rendered incapable of resistance
R v Crossan
The Defendant, intending to rape a Victim, presented a loaded revolver at her and threatened to shoot her unless she submitted to sexual intercourse.
It was held that a mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute “violent means”, but when the person making the threat is brandishing a loaded revolver in circumstances that cause the victim to submit to his will in the belief that he will carry out his threat unless she does so, it can be said that she was rendered incapable of resistance by violent means just as effectually as if she were physically incapable.
Case Law: Reckless discharge of a firearm
R v Pekepo
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.
Case Law: Use in any manner whatever
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.
Police v Parker
In this matter the Court suggested to ‘use in any manner whatever’ is to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and would include presenting it.
Case Law: Resist lawful arrest
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.
Case Law: Possession
R v Cox
It is suggested that following R v Cox where both a physical and mental
component must be proved to satisfy this element.
The physical element requires the physical custody or control over the item in question.
The mental element is a combination of both knowledge that the person possesses the item in question, and an intention to possess the item
Case Law: Prima Facie
Tuli v Police
Prima facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary
Case Law: Claim of right
R v Skivington
Theft is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, then it negatives one of the elements of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.
Case Law: Takes
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary
Case Law: Accompanied By (Robbery element)
R v Maihi
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.
Case Law: Threats of Violence
R v Mitchell
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.
R v Broughton
The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.
R v Pacholko
The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the
accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of the nerves of the person threatened’
