Violence Case Law Flashcards
R v Taisalika
R v Taisalika
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
Grievous bodily harm can be defined simply as “harm that is really serious”.
DPP v Smith
“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.
As long as the harm is serious, it need not involve life threatening or permanent injury.
R v Waters
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.
“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
To “disfigure” means “to deform or deface or alter the figure or appearance of a person”.
So a disfigurement results from the infliction of an external injury that detracts from the personal
appearance of the victim, however it does not need to be permanent.
R v Rapana and Murray “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.
R v Donovan
Actual bodily harm may be internal or external, and it need not be permanent or dangerous.
R v Donovan ‘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
Cameron v R
(Subjective test) Recklessness is established if the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable (subjective and objective)
Part (a) of the Cameron test is completely subjective. A “real possibility” is
substantively the same as something that “could well happen” (as stated in R
v Harney [1987] 2 NZLR 576), formally the leading case on the Recklessness test. Both merely require that the defendant has recognised the risk the offence anticipates as being possible. The defendant does not need to consider the risk significant.
Part (b) is subjective and objective. It looks at whether the defendant’s actions were objectively reasonable given the risk the defendant understood. The Supreme Court in Cameron held that if the actions of the defendant have no
social utility, the running of any risk subjectively appreciated is
R v Tipple
The Court in R v Tipple suggested that as a general rule ‘recklessness’ is to be given the subjective meaning which requires that the accused had a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk and a deliberate decision to run that risk”
R v Tihi
In R v Tihi18 it was held that in proving an offence against section 191, the prosecution must satisfy a ‘two-fold’ test for intent:
- 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.
R v Wati
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 Sturm
R v Sturm the defendant was convicted for 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.
The Court in this matter held that 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
R v Pekepo
Under s198(1)(a), it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a reckless discharge of the weapon in the general direction of the person who happened to be hit. There must be an intention on the part of the defendant to shoot at that person.
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
R v Swain the defendant, when confronted by a Constable, removed a sawn-off shotgun from a bag, saying “Don’t be stupid”, causing the officer to fear for his safety. Although he didn’t point the gun at the officer, it was held that his actions in taking the shotgun out of the bag in plain view of the Constable amounted to the ‘use’” of the firearm in an intimidating and threatening manner against him.
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
Fisher v R
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
In R v Skivington the defendant went to the office where he and his wife worked and demanded their wage packets two days earlier than they were due. He threatened one of the managers and forced the man at knife point to retrieve the cash from the safe. His conviction for “robbery with aggravation” was quashed on the basis that he genuinely believed he was entitled to the money.
R v Skivington
“theft is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, then it negatives one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”
The Court of Appeal in this matter, further held that as long as the defendant genuinely believed he had a right to the money, it was unnecessary to establish that he also believed he was entitled to take the money in the way
that he did.
R v Lapier
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox
Possession may be considered to be either “actual” or “potential”.
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
The physical element requires the physical custody or control over the item in question and can be either “actual” or “potential”.
Actual possession arises where the thing in question is in a person’s physical custody or control.
Potential possession arises when the person has the potential to have the thing
The mental element is a combination of both knowledge that the person possesses the item in question, and an intention to possess the item
R v Maihi
R v Maihi
“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 …”
A threat made with the necessary intent may have a continuing effect that is still operating on the
victim’s mind some time later when the goods are eventually handed over
Peneha v Police
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”.
Whether or not the degree of violence used is sufficient to amount to robbery is a matter of fact for determination in each case.
R v Broughton
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.
R v Joyce
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.” Mere presence during the commission of robbery, without active participation, is not sufficient
R v Galey
R v Galey
“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 Crossan
R v Crossan
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.”
