CASE LAW

Question 1

Wounding:
What case law applies to intent?

Answer 1

R v Taisalika

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

Question 2

What case law applies to GBH?

Answer 2

DPP v SMITH

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

Question 3

What case law applies to “Wounds”?

Answer 3

R v Waters
“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, in its occurrence 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 tissue may be internal.”

Question 4

What case law applies to Disfigurement?

Answer 4

R v Rapana and Murray
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.

Question 5

What case law deals with ‘Bodily harm’?

Answer 5

R v Donnovan
‘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, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.

Question 6

What case law refers to Recklessness?

Answer 6

Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his 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.

Question 7

For aggravated wounding, what case law speaks about the necessity to prove the commission or attempted commission of an imprisonable offence?

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

What case law deals with s198(1)(a) discharging a firearm at someone to do GBH?

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

What case law refers to ‘Use of a firearm’ in respect of s198A?

Answer 9

R v Swain

To deliberately or purposely remove a sawn-off shot gun from a bag after being confronted by or called upon by a police constable amounts to a use of that forearm within the meaning of s198A Crimes Act 1961.

Question 10

Uses any Firearm Against Law Enforcement, CA61 s198A(2).

What case law relates to knowing someone was attempting to arrest him?

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

s191
What case law found that a threat of violence coupled with brandishing the weapon was sufficient to render the victim incapable.

Answer 11

R v Crossan

Question 12

Robbery:
What case law involves a defence?

Answer 12

R v Skivington

“Larceny [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.”

Question 13

Robbery:
What case law applies to a thief taking only brief possession of the property stolen?

Answer 13

R v Lapier

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

Question 14

What case law deals with possession?

Answer 14

R v Cox

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.

Question 15

Robbery:
What case law points to what the crown have to prove?

Answer 15

R v Maihi

“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 …”

Question 16

Robbery:
Case law - violence

Answer 16

Peneha v Police

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”.

Question 17

Case law for GBH?

Answer 17

DPP v Smith

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

Question 18

Aggravated Robbery/Assault with Intent to Rob:
What case law deals instructs the Crown what must be established when it comes to the meaning of “being together with”?

Answer 18

R v Joyce

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

Question 19

Aggravated Robbery/Assault with Intent to Rob:
What case law deals with the intent associated with the term “being together with”?

Answer 19

R v Galey

“Being together” in the context of s235(b) 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.”

Question 20

Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for “Taking away”?

Answer 20

R v Wellard

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”.

Question 21

Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for determining “Taking” and “Detaining”?

Answer 21

R v Crossan

Taking away and detaining are “separate 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.”

Question 22

Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for “Detaining”?

Answer 22

R v Pryce

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.

Question 23

Case law for “Consent”?

Answer 23

R v Cox

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

Question 23

Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law that looks at the period of “Intent” in relation to “Taking or Detaining”?

Answer 23

Mohi

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.

Question 23

Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for when intent is formed in relation to “taking or detaining”?

Answer 23

R v Waaka

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.

Question 24

Abduction / Kidnapping:
Case Law for What the Crown must prove?

Answer 24

R v M

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:

Question 25

Case law relating to proof of age?

Answer 25

R v Forrest and Forrest

“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the
prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.”

Question 26

Case Law for Stupifies

Answer 26

R v Strum

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 a way which might hinder an intended crime.

Stupefies also includes circumstances where the administration of drugs leads to dis-inhibition and stimulated uncharacteristic behaviour.

Question 27

Which case pointed out the link between cause and effect is a physical one, not one of time? This case used the example of the slow progression of aids which resulted in GBH.

Answer 27

R v Mwai

*Was found guilty of causing GBH with reckless disregard for the safety of others.**

The Court of Appeal held that S188 is not limited to the immediate harmful consequences of the offender’s actions.

All that is required for the actus reus for GBH is an act causing GBH. The link between cause and effect is a physical one, not one of time. The consequences may be delayed, but they are consequences nonetheless.

Question 28

Short version of Tipple

Answer 28

Deliberate decision to run the risk.

Question 29

R v Chan-Fook

Answer 29

“…the phrase actual bodily harm is capable of including psychiatric injury.”