1
Q
Doctrine of Transferred Malice 1st sentence only and R V HUNT Case Law.
A
It is not necessary that the person suffering harm was the intended victim.
Demonstarted in R V HUNT
The offender broke into the stable and was caught by the property owner. The offender intended to stab the owner with a knife but in the struggle he accidentally cut the wrist of the servant.
Degree of Harm - R V HUNT
Wounding maiming or disfiurguring need not be grevious, if in causing that harm the Defendant had the intent to cause really serious harm. Intent to cause GBH, is immaterial whether GBH was done. The question is not what the wound is but what wound was intended.
2
Q
Definition of R V WATERS
A
The 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 the blow or impact; the wound will be more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissue, may be internal.
3
Q
Know stupefies including R V STRUM section 191 CA 61.
A
The Court held that to ‘stupefy’ means to: Cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which seriously interferes with that persons mental or physical ability to act in a way which might hinder an intended crime. Rendered senseless, unconscious and includes administration of drugs has led to disinhibition and stimulated uncharacteristic behaviours.
4
Q
Define - GBH, Wounds, Maims, Disfigures and Injures
A
- GBH: Harm that is really serious (DPP V SMITH).
- Wounds: A breaking of the skin, flow of blood, more often than not be external, may be internal (R V WATERS).
- Maims: Involves mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body, so the Victim is deprived of the use of a limb or one of the senses. There needs to be some degree of permanence.
- Disfigures: To disfigure means to deform or deface, to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person. It covers not only permanent damage but temporary damage (R V RAPANA & MURRAY).
- Injures: Means to cause actual bodily harm (R V DONAVAN).
5
Q
Psychiatric Injury
A
Bodily harm may include psychiatric injury but does not include mere emotion.
6
Q
Explain the term second intent
A
An intent to produce a specific result by their actions
7
Q
Example of a non-immediate harmful consequence (HIV) and support answer with case law (R V MWAI):
A
A person with AIDS knowingly has unprotected sex with another person. The person gets AIDS. R V MWAI GBH is not limited to the immediate harmful consequence of the offender’s actions. A steady relentless progression of the disease, which then led to evitable death was sufficient to establish the Defendant caused GBH.
8
Q
What was held in R V CROSSAN (rendered incapable of resistance) in relation to S191 CA 61?
A
Incapable of resistance includes - powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity. Violent means is not limited to physical violence and may include threats of violence depending on the circumstances.
9
Q
What is the difference between s188 & s189?
A
The outcome of the Victim’s injuries and intent by the offender.
10
Q
What is the difference between intents in s188(1) & s188(2)?
A
Same outcome different intent. In subsection (1) the offender intends to cause GBH. In subsection (2) the offender intends only to injure the Victim, although the actual outcome is a greater degree of harm than he anticipated.
11
Q
In R V TIHI the prosecution must satisfy the two fold test for intent. What is the two fold test?
A
- The defendant intended to facilitate the commission of a imprisonable offence.
- The defendant intended to cause the specified harm or was reckless as to that risk.
12
Q
Case Law (R V TIHI)
A
Aggravated - two fold test
Intention to commit and imprisonable offence
Intention to cause specified harm or foresaw their actions were likely to cause harm
13
Q
What are the intents for Aggravated Wounding s191
A
(a) To commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence
(b) To avoid detection of himself or any other person in the commission of an imprisonable offence
(c) To avoid arrest or facilitate flight of himself or any other person upon the commission or attempted commission of any imprisonable offence
14
Q
What constitutes recklessness?
A
A conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. Cameron V R - Established if defendant recognised the real possibility that their actions would bring about the proscribed result and proscribed circumstances existed having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable.
R V Tipple: Requires Defendant know or have conscious appreciation of risk and makes deliberate decision to run risk.
15
Q
By any “violent means” renders incapable of resistance
A
A mere threat itself may not be sufficient to constitute violent means. “The threat of brandishing the loaded firearm around causes the victim to submit to the offender’s will - in the belief that he will carry out his threat unless she does so.”
“Violent Means” includes the application of force that physically incapacitates a person.
R V Crossan
16
Q
What was held in R V CROSSAN?
A
Victim had gun held to head and feared if she resisted, she would be shot. Incapable of resistance inlcudes powerlessness of will as well as physical incapacity.
17
Q
Circumstantial evidence
A
Actions/words/nature of act
18
Q
What circumstantial evidence proves the offender’s intent in serious assault cases?
A
R V Collister, words actions spoken before during and after, the and the nature of the act itself
19
Q
John waits down the road as a look out. Bill runs in and uses violence to steal smokes. Although they have acted jointly in the offending why is it not an aggravated robbery by being together with?
A
There must be proof that in committing the robbery that John and Bill were part of a joint enterprise by two or more persons who were physically present at the time of the robbery (R V JOYCE).. John and Bill were not physically together at the time of the robbery. Both are guilty of Robbery.
20
Q
Can a finger up a jersey pretending to be a gun be defined as an instrument or an item appearing to be an offensive weapon? Explain your answer referring to case law.
A
No. A person who uses his fingers to simulate the possession of a firearm is not armed with any ‘thing’ and does not commit aggravated robbery. The term ‘any thing’ does not include the defendant’s unsevered hand (R V BENTHAM).
21
Q
What was held in R V SKIVINGTON.
A
No claim of right - need to prove defendant had no claim of right to property.
Larceny or Theft is an ingredient of robbery, and if the honest belief of a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the elements of the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.
22
Q
A
23
Q
What was held in (R V LAPIER):
A
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is momentary.
24
Q
What was held in R V JOYCE (make sure you include ‘JOINT ENTERPRISE’ in the case law)
A
There must be proof that in committing the robbery, the defendant was part of a joint enterprise by two or more persons who were physically present at the robbery.
25
Define claim of right?
In relation to any act, a belief at the time of the act in a propriety or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed, although that belief may be based on ignorance, mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment to which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
26
Four types of belief of Claim of Right.
First - the belief must be a belief in a proprietary or possessory right in property.
Second – the belief must be about rights to the “property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
Thirdly – the belief must be held at the time of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence.
Fourthly – the belief must be actually held by the defendant. The belief is not required to be reasonable or reasonably held.
27
What are the ingredients of Theft S219 (1)?
Dishonestly and without claim of right, takes any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or any interest in that property.
28
Definition of ownership
‘Ownership’ for the purposes of theft, is defined by s218 of the Crimes Act 1961. For the purposes of this Part, a person is to be regarded as the owner of any property that is stolen if, at the time of the theft, that person has:
(a) possession or control of the property; or
(b) any interest in the property; or
(c) the right to take possession or control of the property
29
Possession
Possession may be actual or potential.
30
Actual Possession
Actual possession arises where the thing in question is in a person’s physical custody or control.
31
R V COX
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.
32
Potential Possession
Potential possession arises when the person has the potential to have the thing in question in their control.
33
What factors elevate the offence of Robbery S234 CA 61 to Aggravated s235 CA 61?
a, at the time or immediately before or after ‘caused GBH to any person’
b, Being together with any other person robs any person.
c, Being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be a weapon robs any person.
34
35
What is held in R V JOYCE?
Physical proximity - the crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.
'Together with' requires that two or more people are action p[resent and action in the commission of the robbery/
36
Dishonesty
Can be inferred from the circumstance. in relation to an act or omission, means done or omitted without a belief that there was express or implied consent to, or authority for, the act or
omission from a person entitled to give such consent or authority
37
R V Galey
Joint Enterprise ' 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.
38
Offensive Weapon
Defined in 202A of the Crimes Act 1961.
Any article made or altered for use for causing bodily injury, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.
Any article capable of being sued for causing bodily injury.
39
Definition of instrument
Includes any item intended to be used as a weapon or to intimidate and over bear the victim's will to resist.
40
DPP V Smith
GBH - "Bodily Harm' needs no explanation and 'grevious' means no more and no less than "really serious".
41
R V Maihi
Accompanied by "it is implicit in 'accompany' that there must be a nexux (connection or link) between the act of stealing and the threat of violence. Noth must be present.
42
Peneha V Police
Actions of Defendant forcibly interfere with victims personal freedom. Therefore violence or threats must be more than minimal.
43
R V Tipple
Recklessly - Requires Defendant know or have conscious appreciation of risk and makes deliberate decision to run the risk.
44
R V Donovan
Bodily Harm - Any hurt or injury that interferes with health or comfort or victim. More that trifling or transitory.
45
R V Rapana and Murray
Disfigurement need not be permanent but can be temporary damage.
46
R V Wati
Aggravated - Must be proof of the attempt or commission of the crime by the person committing the assault.
47
R V Sturm
Facilitate - Must prove imprisonable offence was committed.
Stupifies - Effect mind and nervous system which seriously interferes with their mental/physical ability
48
R V Tasailika
Nature of blow can prove intent
49
Three intents for kidnapping A B and C.
With intent to hold him/her for ransom or service OR
With intent to cause him/her to be confined or imprisoned OR
With intent to cause him/her to be sent or taken out of NZ.
50
Under s210A CA 61, state the statutory defence for Kidnapping and Abduction of an YP?
A person who claims in good faith - a right to the possession of an YP under 16yrs - cannot be convicted under this section - because he/she gets possession of the YP.
51
What was held in R V CROSSAN with regard to ‘taking away and detaining’.
Taking away and detaining are separate offences. The first consist 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.
52
What must be proved for section 208
1.The Defendant took away or detained a person
2.The taking or detention was intentional or deliberate
3.The taking or detention was unlawful
4.The taking or detention was without that person’s consent
5. The defendant knew that there was no consent to the taking or detention; and
6. Then Dendenant intended to: a, go through marriage b, have sexual connection c. Cause person to go through marriage/civil union to another person tk ahve sexual connection.
53
For a conviction under s210 (1) Abduction of YP under 16 of the CA61 the Crown must prove what.
* The defendant Took, Enticed or Detained (TED) a person under 16yrs;
* The TED was deliberate and intentional;
* The TED was from a person who had lawful care of the young person;
* The defendant knew the other person had lawful care of the young person;
* The TED was unlawful; and
* It was done with the intent to deprive a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of the young person of possession of that young person.
54
For a conviction of Receiving a YP under s210 (2) Abduction of YP under 16 of the CA61 the Crown must prove what? What are the 4 things? This is worth 4 marks!!
* The defendant received a person under 16yrs;
* The receiving was deliberate and intentional;
* The defendant knew the YP had been unlawfully TED by another from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of YP of the possession of that YP; and
* The defendant intended by reason of the receiving to deprive a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of YP of the possession of that YP.
55
Can a young person consent to being taken away for the purpose of s209-210 CA61. Explain your answer.
S210(3) A child under 16 cannot consent to being taken away or detained. It is immaterial whether the offender believes the young person consents, or is taken or goes or is received at his/her own suggestion.
56
What happens if a Father takes a child when the mother has custody of them? Case law.
A parent may commit an offence of abduction (intent) in respect of their own child where their actions are unlawful, for example a father who takes his own child from its mother contrary to a Court Order R V MIKKELSON.
57
Define consent as set out in R V COX.
Consent must be full, voluntary, free and informed, freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rationale judgement.
58
When is the offences 198(1)(a) and s198(1)(b) complete?
* S198(1)(a) requires the actual discharge of the firearm at a person
* S198(1)(b) does not require an explosion to occur. The offence is complete when an explosive or injurious device is sent, delivered or put in place. The device must have the capacity to explode or cause injury.
59
Definitions for discharge, firearm and explosive – (note the line the substance must have the capacity to explode)
Discharge: To “discharge” in this context means “to fire or shoot”.
Firearm: The term “firearm” and “airgun” are defined by Section 2 Arms Act 1983, the primary difference being that a firearm acts by force of explosive, whereas an airgun acts by force of compressed air or gas.
Explosive: Sec 2 Arms Act 1983
Any substance, mixture or combination of substances, which in its normal state, is capable either of decomposition at such rapid rate, as to result in an explosion or of producing a pyrotechnic effect. Includes gun powder, gelignite, detonators. Doesn’t include fireworks or firearms.
60
R V PEKEPO
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.
60
Elements of 198(A)2 – any firearm in any manner etc (know what was found in R v SWAIN) Uses in any manner whatever
The primary meaning of the word “use” in relation to a firearm is to fire it, but the words “in any manner whatever” widen the definition to include a range of acts that stop short of actually shooting at an officer. It is sufficient if the defendant has handled or manipulated the firearm so as to convey an implied threat of its further use against the police officer. It is not necessary that the firearm was presented at the officer or that it be discharged.
61
State and explain the three main investigative approach options for people trafficking and migrant smuggling
Reactive – Victim led with an approach to Police by the Same victim or someone acting on their behalf.
Proactive – Police led investigation using resources to identify traffickers and gather evidence.
Disruption – The risk to the Victim demands an immediate response and the reactive and proactive approach are not practicable.
62
What is the key difference between Migrant Smuggling and People Trafficking?
* Migrant smuggling involves a person who has freely consented to be brought into NZ as an illegal immigrant and is not subjected to coercion or deception.
* People Trafficking involves a person who is brought to NZ by mean of coercion and/or deception in order to exploit them as forced labour, or for removal of their organs or sexual exploitation.
63
The differences between the two offence types of People Smuggling and Trafficking are:
* Consent
* The purpose of the travel or movement
* The relationship between the person moved and the people enabling the movement
* Violence, intimidation, or coercion
* Liberty
* Profit
64
What is the penalty for Trafficking People by means of coercion or deception?
* 20 year imprisonment or a $500,000 fine or both.
65
Do you need approval from the Attorney General to prosecute the offences under s98C and 98D CA61?
* Yes. But you do not need approval to arrest or oppose bail.
66
Who are the Government agency members of the people trafficking Inter-Agency Working Group? M & Z
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (lead agency)
* Ministry of Social Development(MSD)
* Ministry of Health (MOH)
* Ministry of Justice (MOJ)
* Ministry of Women’s Affairs
* Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
* NZ Customs
* NZ Immigration
* NZ Police
* Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
67
What is the statutory defence to the charge of blackmail under section 237(2) CA 61?
* A belief by the person making the threat that they are entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss and the threat is a reasonable and proper means for effecting their purpose.
* The belief is not a defence to the charge unless the threat in the circumstances is reasonable and proper for the effecting their purpose. The jury to determine whether the means was reasonable and proper.
68
The intents of Blackmail
* Intent to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat.
* Intent to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any person.
69
For a conviction of Blackmail, what must be proven?
Must prove the identity of the suspect and that they threatened expressly or by implication, to;
-make an accusation against any person (living or dead)
-disclose something about any person (whether living or dead) or
-disclose somethings about any person (whether living or dead) or
-cause serious damage to property or
-endanger the safety of any person
And that the suspect intended to:
-cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with oath the will of the person making the threat,
-obtain any benefit or tk cause loss to any other person
70
Outline the five phases of the general pattern of investigations of Blackmail.
* Initial report
* Mobilisation
* Consolidation
* Investigation and operational: Includes
* investigation and identification of the offender and threats
* Negotiation
* Payment
* Intervention or arrest
* Reactive – includes prosecution
71
Define Accusation
Will normally refer to an allegation that a person is guilty of criminal conduct. It is immaterial whether the substance of the accusation is true or false.
72
For ‘proof of intent’ in serious assault cases, what circumstantial evidence may be inferred from?
* Offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
73
Describe the difference between the term ‘Wounding’ and ‘Grevious Bodily Harm’.
The terms “wounds”, “maims” and “disfigures” refer to the type of injury caused, whereas the term “grievous” refers to the degree or seriousness of the injury.
74
What is the statutory defence for Blackmail?
Sec 237(2) – ‘Claim of right’ – An accused can avoid liability where he or she believes in an entitlement to obtain the benefit or to cause the loss, and objectively reviewed, the threat is reasonable and proper means for bringing about that obtaining or that causing of the loss. It will be for the jury to determine whether the means were reasonable and proper.
75
Define ‘injurious substance or device’ and provide an example.
The term ‘injurious substance or device’ covers a range of things capable causing harm to a person.
For example – letter containing anthrax; boiling water; electrified barbed wire perimeter fence.
76
Would a charge under 198A(1) fail if the police officer was trespassing at the time?
It would likely fail. Officer must be "acting in the course of his or her duty". Trespassing on private property without authority, cannot be said to be, ‘acting lawfully in the course of his or her duty’.
77
Scenario is something like John tells his neighbor Nick to put a thousand dollars in his letterbox otherwise he would smash his Mercedes vehicle. The next day, Nick puts the money in the letterbox and John takes it. John is located in Rotorua the day after and is charged with blackmail.
List the ingredients to Blackmail. And explain you answer.
Sec 237(1), Crimes Act 1961
1. Threatens,
2. Expressly or by implication,
3. To make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead)
OR
To disclose something about any person (whether living or dead)
OR
to cause serious damage to property
OR
To endanger the safety of any person
4. With intent to:
5. Cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat
AND
To obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person
*Blackmail, in general terms, is any communication that is intended to incite fear, or be interpreted as a threat in the mind of any reasonable person, that, if certain instructions or demands are not complied with, an act or omission (whether by words or action) will occur. Such act or omission would be to the prejudice of any person.
78
What are the intents of Blackmail.
1. To cause the person whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat.
and
2. To obtain any benefit or to cause loss to the other person.
79
Explain R v Taisalika in relation to intoxication and intent.
Taisalika Argued unsuccessfully that he was so intoxicated he could not remember the incident, therefore he could not have possessed the necessary intent. The Court held loss of memory is not the same as lack of intent at the time.
Nature of the blow and gash which it produced on the complainants head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.
80
When investigating a serious assault what additional circumstantial evidence may assist in proving intent?
1. Prior threats
2. Evidence of premeditation
3. Use of a weapon
4. Whether any weapon used was opportunistic or purposely brought
5. Number of blows
6. Degree of force used
7. Body parts targeted eg the head
8. Degree of resistance of helplessness of the victim eg unconscious
81
What was held in R V Skivington.
Theft is an ingredient of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has claim of right is a defence to theft, then it negates one of the elements of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is made out. A belief in a claim of right is a defence to robbery.
82
Define - GBH, Wounds, Maims and Injures.
GBH – DPP v SMITH - “Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
Wounds – R V WATERS - Wound – Breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. Will most commonly be external, but may be internal.
Maims - involve mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or of one of the senses.
Injures - To injure means to cause actual bodily harm. – R V DONOVAN – includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, it need not be permanent but must be more than merely transitory or trifling.
83
What must prosecution prove against someone who abducts a young person under Sec 210(2):
1. The Defendant received a person under the age of 16 AND
2. The receiving was deliberate or intentional AND
3. The Defendant knew that the young person had been unlawfully taken or enticed away or detained by another, from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of him or her of the possession of that young person AND
4. The Defendant intended by reason of the receiving to deprive a parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or charge of him or her of the possession of that young person.
84
What is the age for a charge of People Smuggling?
No age limit specified. Penalty is 20 years imprsionment or $500,000 fine.
85
In relation to Sec 208 (Abduction), are ‘takes away’ and ‘detains’ separate acts?
Yes, Detains and Takes Away are two separate and distinct acts giving rise to two different offences and the prosecution must specify which one is being used. (R v Crossan)
86
R V Donovan
Injury - Actual bodily harm or any hurt or Injury that causes harm or discomfort to the person. Need not be permanent but must be more that transitory or trifling.
87
R V Pekapo
Intent to Shoot victim - Must show intent to shoot victim under section 198(1). It is not sufficient for reckless if the suspect fires the weapon in the general directof person who happens to be hit/nearly hit. Intention to deliberately shoot that person must be established
88
Cameron V R
Reckless Disregard - Recklessness is established if defendant recognises there was a real possibility his actions would bring about a proscribed result and those proscribed circumstances existed and having regard to that risk, his actions were unreasonable
89
Police V Parker
Whatever Manner - Short of actually firing the weapon. To sue a firearm in a manner that its not normally used
90
R V Kelt
Person must knowingly have firearm with them. A close physical link and degree of immediate control over weapon by offender must be shown
91
Tuli V Police
Prima Facie - Circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in absence of evidence to the contrary.
92
Fisher V R
Intention to resist lawful arrest or detention: 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 mes rea of intending to resist lawful arrest or detention cannot be established.
93
R V Wellard
Taking Away - 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"
94
R V Pryce
Detains: Imposing constraint or restraint on person detained. Actively keeping/confining them.
95
R V Mohi
Intent: Offence is committed at the time of taking /detaining as long as intent is established before or during. Intent does not have to be carried out.
96
R V Forrest and Forrest
Kidnapping/Abduction Young Person - Prosecution must prove young person’s age .
97
R V Waaka
Intent in abduction cases. 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 sufficent for the purpose of the section.
98
R V M
Kidnapping - 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.
99
What is a ransom?
a ransom is a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a person being held captive.
100
Benefit
Any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration
101
Service
Hold as a servant or slave
102
Imprisoned
To be held as if in prison.
out of New Zealand.
103
Extort
Extort means to obtain by coercion or intimidation
104
Confined
Restricting their movements to within a geographical area.
105
Threats of Violence
A threat of violence is generally a direct or veiled warning that violence will be used if the victim does not submit to the robber's demands.
106
Being Armed*
The defendant is carrying the item or has it available for immediate use as a weapon
107
Airgun
a) Any air rifle; and b) Any air pistol; and c) Any weapon from which, by the use of gas or compressed air (and not by force of explosive), any shot, bullet,
missile, or other projectile can be discharged
108
Firearm
Means anything from which any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile can be discharged by force of explosive and b) Includes i) Anything that has
been adapted; and ii) Anything which is not for the time being capable of, but which, by its completion or replacement of any component, or repair of any
defect would be a firearm; and iii) Anything dismantled or partially dismantled; and iv) Any specially dangerous airgun
109
Against any Constable
Constable means a police employee who- a) hold the office of constable (whether appointed as a constable under the Police Ac 1958 or
this Act); and b) includes a constable who holds any level of position within the New Zealand Police (Sec 4 Police Act 2008)
110
Defences to kidnapping/abduction
Belief that person over 16 no defence - It is immaterial whether the offender believes the young person to be of or over the age of 16
Good Faith Defence -A person who claims in good faith a right to the possession of a young person under the age of 16 cannot be convicted of an offence against S209 or 210 because he or she gets possession of the young person. Does not apply to S208.
Consent of child under 16- Section 209A Crimes Act 1961, For the purposes of S208 and S209, a person under the age of 16 years cannot consent to being taken
away or detained.
Consent not a defence - For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2) it is immaterial whether the young person consents, or is taken or goes or is received at his or
her own suggestion.
111
The threat of Violence is insufficient to constitute violent means:
It was held that a mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute "violent means", but when the person making the threat is brandishing a loaded
revolver in circumstances that cause the victim to submit to his will in the belief that he will carry out his threat unless she does so, it can be said that she was
rendered incapable of resistance by violent means just as effectually as if she were physically incapable.
112
R V Broughton
Threats of Violence - threat may be direct or veiled, conveyed by conducts or words or both. Absence of fear by victim does not negate the threats.
DDP
flashcards
Decks in class (10)
# Cards
