Case Law

Question 1

R v Taisalika

Assault - intent

Answer 1

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

R v Waaka

Answer 2

A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient. There must be a firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.

Question 3

R v Mohan

Answer 3

Intent involves a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence.

Question 4

DPP v Smith

Assault - harm

Answer 4

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

Question 5

R v Rapana & Murray

Assault - disfigure

Answer 5

The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 6

R v Waters

Assault - wound

Answer 6

A wound is a breaking in the continuity of the skin with the flow of blood & can be internal or external.

Question 7

R v Donovan

Assault - harm

Answer 7

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 & trifling.

Question 8

R v Harney

Answer 8

Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.

Question 9

R v Tihi

Answer 9

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), or (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.

Question 10

R v Wati

Agg.Robbery - commission of crime

Answer 10

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 of flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

Question 11

R v Pekepo

Firearms

Answer 11

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 12

R v Swain

Firearms

Answer 12

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 use of that firearm within the meaning of Sec.198A C.A 61

Question 13

R v Fisher

Firearms

Answer 13

It is necessary in order to establish a charge under Sec.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 14

R v Cugullere

Firearms

Answer 14

The words “has with him” must mean knowingly has with him.

Question 15

R v Kelt

Firearms

Answer 15

Having a firearm “with him” requires a very close physical link & a degree of immediate control over the weapon by the man alleged to have the firearm with him.

Question 16

R v Skivington

Robbery

Answer 16

Larceny, or theft, is an ingredient of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negates one of the ingredients in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.

Question 17

R v Lapier

Robbery

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Possession

Answer 18

Ideally a possessor of a thing has:

• complete physical control over it
• knowledge of its existence, its situation & its qualities

Question 19

R v Maihi

Robbery - theft & violence

Answer 19

It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus between the act of stealing & a threat of violence. Both must be present. However the term does not require that the act of stealing & the threat of violence be contemporaneous.

Question 20

Peneha v Police

Robbery

Answer 20

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 21

R v Joyce

Robbery - two persons

Answer 21

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

Question 22

R v Galey

Robbery - together

Answer 22

‘Being together’ in the context of Sec.235(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 23

R v Chartrand

Abduction/Kidnap - unlawfully

Answer 23

Unlawfully means without lawful justification, authority or excuse.

Question 24

R v Wellard

Abduction/Kidnap - takes away

Answer 24

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 25

R v Crossan

Abduction/Kidnap - takes away/detains

Answer 25

‘Taking away’ & ‘detaining’ are separate & 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, & his conduct in detaining her constituted a new & different offence.

Question 26

R v Pryce

Abduction/Kidnap - detain

Answer 26

‘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 27

R v Mohi

Abduction/Kidnap - taking

Answer 27

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 28

R v Forrest & Forrest

Answer 28

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

Question 29

*R v Hunt

GBH

Answer 29

If there was an intent to do GBH, it was immaterial whether grievous harm was done. The question is not what the wound is, but what wound was intended.

Question 30

R v Marshall

Blackmail

Answer 30

The threat made need not be received directly by the intended victim provided it is conveyed to that victim.

Question 31

R v Broughton

Robbery - threats of violence

Answer 31

A threat of violence is the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.

Question 32

Sullivan v Earl of Caithness

Answer 32

Possession includes not merely those who have physical custody of firearms, but also those who have firearms under their control at their behest, even though for one reason or another they may be kept at another location.

Question 33

R v Bentham (“any thing” appearing to be such….)

Answer 33

House of Lords held - the term “any thing” did not include the defendant’s unsevered hand.

Question 34

Police v Parker

Answer 34

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

Question 35

R v Fisher

Answer 35

In order to establish a charge under Sec.198A(2), the Crown must prove:

• the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest of detain him;
• otherwise the element of the mens rea of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.

Question 36

Tuli v Police

Answer 36

Prima facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Question 37

R v Mycock

Answer 37

The girl is in the constructive possession of her father so long as she has the intention of returning to her father.