Legislation Elements

Question 1

Arson – Danger to life

Answer 1

Section 267(1)(a) CA 1961

• Intentionally or Recklessly
• Damages by fire or damages by means of any explosive
• Any property
• If he/she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to ensue

Question 2

Arson - Vehicle/Immovable Property - No Interest

Answer 2

Section 267(1)(b) CA 1961

• Intentionally or recklessly
  – Without claim of right
  – Damages by fire or damages by means of any explosive
  – Any immovable property or vehicle or ship or aircraft
  – In which that person has no interest

Question 3

Arson – Cause Loss/Obtain Benefit

Answer 3

Section 267(1)(c) CA 1961

• Intentionally
• Damages by fire or damages by means of any explosive
• Any immovable property or vehicle or ship or aircraft
• With intent
• to obtain any benefit or cause loss to any other person

Question 4

Wounding with Intent

Answer 4

Section 188(1) CA 1961

• With intent to cause GBH
• To any person
• Wounds or maims or disfigures or causes GBH
• To any person

Question 5

Wounding with Intent (Reckless Disregard)

Answer 5

Section 188(2) CA 1961

• With intent to injure any person or with reckless disregard for the safety of others
• Wounds or maims or disfigures or causes GBH
• to any person

Question 6

Injuring with Intent

Answer 6

Section 189(1) CA 1961

• With intent to cause GBH
• to any person
• Injures
• Any person

Question 7

Injuring with Intent (Reckless Disregard)

Answer 7

Section 189(2) CA 1961

• with intent to injure any person or with reckless disregard for the safety of others
• injures
• Any person

Question 8

Aggravated Wounding

Answer 8

Section 191(1) CA 1961

• with intent:
  (a) to commit, or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence, or
  (b) to avoid the detection of himself, or of any other person in the commission of any imprisonable offence; or
  (c) to avoid the arrest, or facilitate the flight of himself, or of any other person upon the commission, or attempted commission of any imprisonable offence
• Wounds or maims or disfigures or causes GBH

Stupefies, renders, unconscious, any person

Buy any violent means renders any person in capable of resistance

• Any person

Question 9

Case Law in relation to Arson

Answer 9

• R v MORLEY (Loss is determined by…)
• R v ARCHER (Property damage = temp. Or perm. Physical harm or impairment of value)
• R v HARPUR (Outcome is relevant but not always determinative)
• R v TIPPLE
• R v COLLISTER (Circumstances can determine intent)
• R v SMITH (Common sense = danger to life other than setters)
• CAMERON v R (Proscribed circumstances/outcome likely & deliberate act anyway)
• R v WILSON (Tenancy in property warrants interest in property)

Question 10

Case Law in relation to Serious Assaults

Answer 10

• R v TAISALIKA (Nature of injury infers intent)
• R v RAPANA & MURRAY (‘Disfugures’ can be temporary)
• R v WATERS (‘Wound’ is evidenced by blood flow)
• DPP v SMITH (‘Bodily Harm’ needs no explanation & ‘Grievous’ = really serious)
• R v MCARTHUR (Bodily harm, comfort & health, transitory & trifling)
• R v DONOVAN (Bodily harm, comfort & health, transitory & trifling)
• R v HUNT (Doctrine Transferred Malice, AND not necessary that intended victim is receiver)
• R v MWAI (Bodily Harm not necessarily immediate actions)
• CAMERON v R (Proscribed x2 and deliberate)
• R v TIPPLE (recklessness subjective)
• R v CHAN-FOOK (psychiatric is bodily harm is medically confirmed)
• R v TIHI (meant to cause harm, intended to facilitate commission)
• R v WATI (Must prove assault for 191(1)(c))
• R v STURM (under 191(1)(a) not necessary to prove crime committed)
  (Stupefy means seriously interferes with mental or physical ability)
• R v CROSSAN (incapable of resistance includes powerlessness)
• R v CLARIDGE

Question 11

Case Law in relation to Robbery

Answer 11

• R v RING (theft complete item moved)
• R v SKIVINGTON (honest belief = COR)
• R v LAPIER (complete when property taken, if only momentary)
• R v PEAT (return doesn’t purge theft)
• R v COX (possession = mental and physical elements)
• R v MAIHI (nexus e tween stealing and threat of violence)
• R v MITCHELL (previous threats = question of fact and degree)
• R v COLLISTER (circumstances infer intent)
• R v BROUGHTON (brought the threat of violence & fear by actions)
• R v BUTLER (combination of circum. can facilitate theft)
• R v JOYCE (2 or more physically present needed to prove rob.)
• R v GALEY (“being together” a.235(b) 2 having common intention, combined force)
• PENEHA v POLICE (actions forcibly interfere with freedoms of victim)
• R v NEWELL (violence used to facilitate escape despite no theft)
• R v WELLS (harm need not be inflicted on victim of robbery)
• R v BENTHAM (hand/fingers are not a ‘thing’)