Case Law Flashcards
(26 cards)
R v Taisalika
Intent
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point to the presence of the necessary intent
DPP v Smith
Grievous Bodily Harm
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious
R v Collister
Intent
Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include
- offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
- The surrounding circumstances
- The nature of the act itself
R v Waters
Wounds
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 to be external. But there are cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal.
R v Rapana and Murray
Disfigurement
The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
R v Donovan
Injure- To injure means to cause actual bodily harm
Actual bodily harm
‘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 and trifling
Cameron v R
Recklessness
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) the the proscribed circumstances existed
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
R v Tihi
Intent- two fold test
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs a,b,c, it must be shown that the offender either meant to cause the specified harm, or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it
R v Wati
Facilitate flight
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
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 in any matter whatever
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 s198 Crimes act 1961
Fisher v R
Intent to resist lawful arrest or detention
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
R v Skivington
Claim of right as a defence to robbery
Larceny (or theft) is an element of robbery, and of 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 robber, without proof of which the full offence is not made out
R v Lapier
Taking
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary
R v Cox
Possession
Possession involves two elements.
Physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control.
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
R v Maihi
Accompanied by
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
Peneha v Police
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
R v Joyce
Together with (physically proximate)
The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred
R v Galey
Being together…
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’
R v Wellard
Taking away
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’
R v Crossan
Taking away vs detaining
Taking away entertaining 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 and detaining her constituted a new and different offence”
R v Pryce
Detains
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 handover
R v Cox
Consent
Consent must be ‘ full, voluntary, free and informed, freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement’.
Mohi
Intentions in abduction cases
The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention or are taking accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out.
