Flashcards in FIREARMS - Case Law Deck (7)
DPP V SMITH - GBH
DPP V SMITH ‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation, ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’.
R v PEKEPO - A reckless discharge
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 DONOVAN - Bodily harm
R V DONOVAN
- Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim.
- It need not be permanent
- But must be more than merely transitory or trifling.
R V HARNEY - Recklessness
R V HARNEY Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
POLICE v PARKER - Use in any manner whatever
POLICE v PARKER Uses in any manner is short of actually firing the weapon and to present a rifle means the same thing.
R V KELT - immediate control
R V KELT
- Having a firearm with him requires a very close physical link; and
- A degree of immediate control over the weapon.
TULI V POLICE - Prima facie circumstances
TULI V POLICE
Prima facie circumstances
- Are to show or establish intent
- In the absence of evidence to the contrary.