Serious Assaults Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika - What was it about
The defendant crashed a party, and in an unprovoked attack struck another party-goer on the side of the head with a glass. The glass shattered, causing a serious gash to the victim’s temple and multiple cuts to his face.
Taisalika argued unsuccessfully that he had been so intoxicated he could not remember the incident and that therefore he could not have had the necessary intent. The Court held that loss of memory of past events is not the same as lack of intent at the time.
R v Taisalika - (GBH Intent)
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.
R v Waters - What was it about?
In R v Waters it was held that a wound involves the breaking of the skin and the flowing of blood, either externally or internally.
In Waters, despite a prolonged violent assault, the only medical evidence of harm to the victim was a bleeding nose, which was held to be an “injury” rather than a wound in that particular case.
However any rupture of the tissues of the body, internal or external, can amount to a wound, and whether or not it does is a matter of fact for determination in each case.
R v Waters - (Wounding)
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 tissues may be internal.
DPP v Smith - (GBH Meaning)
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
So the term “grievous” refers to the degree of harm, rather than to the nature of it or how it was caused.
R v Rapana and Murray - (Disfigures)
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
R v Donovan - What was it about?
A man was charged with caning a 17-year-old girl for the purposes of sexual gratification. The doctor examining the girl’s body found marks consistent with “a fairly severe beating”.
R v Donovan - Injuring (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, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.
R v Harney - What was it about?
The defendant was convicted of murder after stabbing the victim in the stomach during an altercation. He argued unsuccessfully that he had been aiming for the victim’s leg knowing he could have seriously injured the man, but denied wanting to kill him.
R v Harney - (Recklessness)
“Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.”
R v Tihi - What was it about?
One of the defendants in this matter held a knife to a taxi driver’s neck in order to steal his taxi, inflicting a small cut in the process. He admitted his intent to steal the taxi, but argued that the injury to the driver was unintentional.
R v Tihi - (Aggravated Wounding)
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in Sec 191(1) 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.”
R v Sturm - What was it about?
The defendant was convicted after administering alcohol, Ecstasy and other drugs to a number of male victims in order to dull their senses sufficiently to enable him to sexually violate them.
R v Sturm - (Sec 191(1)(a) Intention)
Under section 191(1)(a) “it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed”.
R v Sturm - Stupefy
To “stupefy” means 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 any way which might hinder an intended crime.
