Violence case law 2020 Flashcards

1
Q

R v Taisalika

A

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

DPP v Smith

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v Waters

A

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 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 may be evidence of internal breaking of tissue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Rapana and Murray

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Donovan

A

‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, it need not be permanent, but be more than merely transitory and trifling.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Harney

A

Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. It involves proof that the consequence complained of could well have happened, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Tihi

A

In addition to one of the specified intents outlines in 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 expose others to the risk of suffering it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Wati

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Pekepo

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Swain

A

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 S198A CA1961

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fisher v R

A

To establish a charge under section 198A(2), the Crown must prove that the accused knew someone was attempting to arrest or detain him because otherwise the mens rea element of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Skivington

A

Theft is an elect of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to theft, then it negates one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Lapier

A

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Cox

A

Possession involves two elements, 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 awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Maihi

A

In ‘accompany’ there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and the treat of violence. Both must be present however they do not have to be contemporaneous.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Peneha v Police

A

It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury.

17
Q

DDP v Smith

A

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

18
Q

R v Joyce

A

The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.

19
Q

R v Galey

A

Being together in the context of S235(b) involves two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force.

20
Q

R v Crossan

A

Taking away and detaining are seperate 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.

21
Q

R v Pryce

A

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.

22
Q

R x Cox

A

Consent must be full, voluntary, free, and informed.. freely and voluntarily given be a person in a position to form a rational judgment.

23
Q

Mohi

A

The offence is complete once there has been a period of detention accompanied by the necessary intent, regardless of whether that intent was carried out.

24
Q

R v Waaka

A

Intent may be formed at any time during the taking away

25
Q

R v M

A

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.

26
Q

R v Forrest and Forrest

A

The best evidence possible in the circumstance should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age

27
Q

R v Wellard

A

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