Other Flashcards
What are the two focuses of a serious assault investigation?
The offender’s intent and the degree of harm suffered by the victim.
Examples of circumstantial evidence that may prove intent
- Prior threats
- Evidence of premeditation
- The use of a weapon
- Whether any weapon used was opportunistic or purposely brought
- The number of blows
- The degree of force used
- The body parts targeted by the offender
- The degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg. unconscious)
Establish the difference between wounds, maims, disfigures and the term GBH
The terms “wounds”, “maims” and “disfigures” refer to the type of injury caused, whereas the term “grievous” refers to the degree or seriousness of the injury.
For example, stabbing a person with a knife will cause, by definition, a wound, although the wound may, in some cases, not be “serious”.
What is the doctrine of transferred malice?
It is not necessary that the person suffering the harm was the intended victim. Where the defendant mistakes the identity of the person injured, or where harm intended for one person is accidentally inflicted on another, he is still criminally responsible, under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, despite the wrong target being struck.
What must be proven in relation to aggravated wounding?
- Intent to commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence
- Intent to avoid detection of himself or any of person in the commission of any offence imprisonable offence.
- Intent to avoid the arrest or facilitate e the flight of himself or of any other person upon the commission or attempted commission of any imprisonable offence.
What is the ‘two-fold’ test in relation to R v Tihi?
- The defendant intended to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence (or one of the other intents specified in paras (a), (b) or (c), and
- He or she intended to cause the specified harm, or was reckless as to that risk.
Discuss the mens rea and the actus reas of Discharging a firearm under section 198
Mens rea:
- Intent to do GBH
- Intent to injure
- Reckless disregard for the safety of others
Actus reus
- Discharging a firearm at a person
- Delivering explosives
- Setting fire to property
Whats the difference between the firearms offences and the wounding/injurying offences?
Unlike some other serious violent offences, it is not necessary under s198 to prove that the victim suffered actual bodily harm. What is relevant is that the offender did one of the specified acts, with one of the specified intents.
Where actual bodily harm results, the appropriate charge would be one of wounding or injuring with intent under Section 188 or 189 of the Crimes Act 1961, or murder or manslaughter, depending on the outcome.
When is the offence of 198(1)(a) or 198(1)(b) (discharging a firearm and sends or delivers) complete?
198(1)(a) require the actual discharge of a firearm.
198(1)(b) The offence is complete when an explosive or injurious substance or device sent, delivered, or put in place. However, the substance must have the capacity to explode or cause injury.
What must the prosecution prove in relation to the ‘accompanied by’ element of Robbery
The prosecution must prove a connection between the violence or threats and the stealing of the property - it must be shown that the defendant not only had an intent to steal at the time the violence or threats were used, but that the violence or threats were used for the purpose of extorting the property, or preventing or overcoming resistance.
Circumstances to consider in regard to ‘threats of violence in Robbery’
The Court in ‘Broughton’ went on to say that “whether or not the conduct complained of is capable of amounting to a threat of violence must be assessed in the context in which it occurred”. This requires consideration of all the circumstances, which in that case included:
- the relative ages of the parties
- their respective physiques
- their appearance
- their demeanour
- what was said and done by those involved
- the manner and setting in which the incident took place
Must be proven in relation to blackmail?
You must prove the identity of the suspect and that they threatened,
expressly or by implication, to:
* make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), or
* disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or
* cause serious damage to property, or
* endanger the safety of any person.
And, that the suspect intended to:
* cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the
will of the person making the threat, and
* obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.
Discuss the statutory defence to blackmail
Section 237(2)
It is defence to a charge of blackmail for the defendant to show they believed they were entitled to obtain the benefit or to cause the loss, and, objectively viewed, the making of the threat was a reasonable and proper means for obtaining the benefit or
causing the loss.
It will be for the jury to determine whether the means were reasonable and proper.
Belief by the person making the threat that they are entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss is not in itself a defence to a charge under section
What is blackmail in general terms
Blackmail is any communication that is intended to incite fear, or be interpreted as a threat in the mind of any reasonable person, that, if certain instructions or demands are not complied with, an act or omission will occur. The act or omission would be to the prejudice of any person.
What must be proven in relation to abduction?
- The defendant took away or detained a person;
- The taking or detention was intentional;
- The taking or detention was unlawful;
- The taking or detention was without that person’s consent (or with consent induced by fraud or duress);
- The defendant knew that there was no consent to the taking or detention;
and - The defendant intended to:
(a) Go through a form of marriage, or civil union with the person taken
or detained; or
(b) Have sexual connection with the person taken or detained; or
(c) Cause the person taken or detained to go through a form of marriage,
or civil union to another person or to have sexual connection with
another person.
