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.

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.

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 Jordan

Rare case where negligent medical treatment broke chain. Use for: Defence arguing novus actus.

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.