Criminal Law Cases Overview for LAW 201

R v Wentworth

Interprets 'intention' to include both direct and oblique consequences. Clarifies that even undesired but foreseen outcomes with virtual certainty qualify as intention.

R v Noel

Rejects a presumption that a person intends natural consequences of their actions. Clarifies that intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not assumed.

R v Crooks

Defines knowledge as belief, not just suspicion. Introduces wilful blindness as equivalent to knowledge.

Martin v Police

Clarifies 'forgotten knowledge.' Knowledge must be genuinely absent at the time, not just temporarily forgotten.

Police v Rowles

Honest belief ≠ knowledge. Mistaken belief negates mental element if genuinely held.

R v Cameron

Defines recklessness with a two-part test: 1. Did D foresee the risk? (subjective) 2. Was it an unjustified risk? (objective).

R v Paton

Abuse survivor lacked awareness of consequences → not reckless.

R v Scully

Act done with caring intent, and help sought immediately → no recklessness.

R v Black

Ongoing violence and stabbing → reckless due to likely knowledge of serious harm.

R v Hamer

Major departure test is objective. Personal traits (addiction, ADHD, tiredness) irrelevant.

R v Sam

Allows some individual characteristics to affect reasonable person standard (e.g. age, impairments).

R v Myatt

Minor offences (boating regulations) can count. Test is objective danger to others. the court established that the standard of care in negligence applies across various legal obligations. As well causation must be substative and operativein determining liability for negligence in criminal cases.

R v Lee

Confirms any criminal act posing some risk of harm is enough.

R v Kuka

Mother's failure to get help = cause of death. Causation satisfied. Without omission to act the v was unlikely to die.

But for test is different that’s factual or actual control

What is test for omission

Kuka and but for two different tests. Remember no operative or substantive

R v Witika

Failure to protect from foreseeable violence = abetting.

R v Evans

Awareness of drug overdose → duty to seek help.

R v Miller

Created risk (mattress fire), then did nothing = liable.

JF v Police

Risk of injury is enough; doesn't need to materialise. Use for: s151, s195A liability.

R v Filimoehala

Awareness of injury's cause not needed — just need to recognise medical attention is required. Use for: Reasonableness of failure to seek help.

R v Lunt

Defines 'necessaries' (food, shelter, medical care) and applies to parent-type duties. Use for: s151 and s152 breach explanations.

Loco prentist

R v Taylor / R v Instan

Actual care or charge = factual control, not just formal status. Use for: Determining legal responsibility for a vulnerable person.

R v Taktak

Duty can arise from voluntary assumption of care. Use for: Allie-type cases where accused took charge voluntarily.

R v Khan

Temporary conditions (e.g. intoxication) can still make someone vulnerable. Use for: s151 coverage.

R v Moorhead / R v Laufau

Refusing child medical care breaches s152, even if due to personal/religious reasons. Use for: Parental duty cases.

R v Tukiwaho / R v Tuheke

Unsafe sleeping arrangements = failure to provide necessaries. Use for: s152 breach even by mistake.

R v X

Forgetting child in car may breach duty but could result in discharge without conviction. Use for: Mitigating genuine mistake cases.

R v Yogasakaran

Doctor misprescribing = breach of s155. Gross negligence not required. Use for: s155, dangerous acts by professionals.

R v Crosson / R v Vanner

Non-exclusive control can still establish charge of dangerous item. Use for: s156 liability.

R v Mwai

HIV-positive man → seminal fluid = dangerous thing. Use for: s156 and s145 (criminal nuisance).

R v Turner

Failing to secure item = liability under s145. Use for: Examples of endangering others.

R v Cheshire

Only exceptional medical negligence breaks chain. Use for: Confirming medical mismanagement must be gross.

R v Ten Bohmer

Third party must act freely, deliberately, and informed to break causation. Use for: Response to interventions (e.g. driver panicking).

R v Kamipeli

Intoxication can negate intent but not a full defence. Use for: Mens rea queries.

R v Joyce

Threats must be immediate and real for compulsion. Use for: Duress defences.

R v Tomars

Sets foreseeability test where victim acts in fear. Use for: Causation from victim's response.

R v Lucas

Flight from threat must be reasonable and foreseeable. Use for: Competing causation arguments.

Nose bleed

helped cause the thing thats is dangerous/caused the injury and thus has duty

R v Perry

Is there a requirement for the victim's actions to be proportional to the threat?

）

There is no requirement that the victim's actions be proportional to the threat they are under: [Perry v

R 2018] NZCA 595.

R v Mackie

Age relevant to reasonable response four yrs vs fifty different response