Violence Case Law Flashcards Preview

CIB Modules 2020 > Violence Case Law > Flashcards

Flashcards in Violence Case Law Deck (26)
Loading flashcards...

R v Taisalika (Must Know)

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.


DPP v Smith (Must Know)

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


R v Waters (Must Know)

“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.”


R v Rapana and Murray (Must Know)

The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.


R v Donovan (Must Know)

‘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.


Cameron v R (Must Know)

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) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.


R v Tihi (must know)

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”.


R v Wati

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

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 a use of that firearm within the meaning of s 198A Crimes Act 1961.


Fisher v R (Must Know)

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 (Must Know)

“Larceny [or theft] is an element of robbery, and if 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 robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”


R v Lapier (Must Know)

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. The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the 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 (Must Know)

“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

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

“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 (Must Know)

“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

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 (Must Know)

Taking away and detaining 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 in detaining her constituted a new and different offence.”


R v Pryce (Must Know)

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.


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 judgment.”


Mohi (Must Know)

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.


R v Waaka

Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away. If a taking away commences without the intent to have intercourse, but that intent is formed during the taking away, then that is sufficient for the purposes of the section.


R v M

The Crown must prove that the accused intended to take away or detain the complainant and that he or she knew that the complainant was not consenting:


R v Forrest and Forrest (Must Know)

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