Injures with Intent

Question 1

Section and Penalty?

Answer 1

Section 189(1)

10 years Imprisonment

Section 189(2)

5 years Imprisonment

Question 2

What are the elements for 189(1)?

Answer 2

1. With Intent to cause GBH to any person
2. Injures
3. Any person

Question 3

What is intent?

Answer 3

There are two types of intents in the context of criminal law. Firstly there needs to be an intent to commit the act
second is there needs to be an intent to get a specific result.

Question 4

R v Taisileka

Answer 4

The nature of the blow and the gash produced to the Victim’s head shows the presence of the necessary intent.

Question 5

What is injury?

Answer 5

Section 2 CA

To cause actual bodily harm.

Question 6

R v Donovan

Answer 6

Involves hurt or injury that interferes with the comfort or health of a person. It includes temporary damage It need not to be permanent but needs to more than mere transitory or trifling.

Question 7

What is 189(2)?

Answer 7

1. With intent to cause injury to any person or Reckless
   disregard for the safety of others
2. Injures
3. Any person

Question 8

Explain Reckless and provide caselaw

Answer 8

• Acting “Recklessly” invovles consciously and deliberately taking an unjustified risk.

R v Harney

Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happened together with the intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

Question 9

What must be proved when reckless is an element?

Answer 9

• the defendant consciously and deliberately ran the risk (subjective test)
• that the risk was one that was unreasonable to take in the circumstances as they were known to the defendant (objective test - would a reasonable person have taken the risk)

Question 10

R v Tripple (Reckless)

Answer 10

suggested that as a general rule that recklessness is to be given the subjective meaning which requires that the accused had a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk.

Question 11

Does the defendant in reckless circumstances have foreseen the extent of any injury?

Answer 11

It is only necessary to prove that the defendant foresaw the risk of injury but not the extent of the injury that would result. `