CRIM RULES- extensive

R v Khan

Vulnerable adult because of physical injuries, does not need to be permanent or longstanding
Obiter: maybe because young, isolated, dependant, no language

R v Proude

Charge is broad: depends on state of control, not how it came to be- also applies to strangers
Care is practical help; charge is control

R v Instan; R v Stone and Dobinson; R v Taylor

Living together, in a relationship or blood relative means assuming a duty of care

R v Taktak- Australia

Extended to total stranger: excluded the victim

R v Hamer

Wife overdose- said to have charge by failing to provide medical care
Mutual dependence did’t absolve him of having care a charge
Reasserts the objective test of
Discuss of unusual cases of disability (obiter won’t make a call)- but depression not part
Subjective recklessness (knowing risks) relevant to whether he was grossly negligent/ major departure

R v Rao

Secluding most important, if mistakenly saying doesn’t need welfare not enough

R v Lunt

152 includes Loco Parentis (obiter, flatmates) babysitter, teacher
Additional common law duties not set out in statute

JF v Police

No actual injury necessary (protect from injury) so long as injury is “likely”

Queen v Kuka, Queen v Filimoehala

Liam Williams-Holloway; R v Laufau; R v Moorhead

Failure to obtain medical treatment (ideological last two)

Witika

Failure to protect from assault

R v Tukiwaho; R v Tuheke

Failure to provide safe sleeping conditions (protect from injury)

JF v Police

Failure to use child restraint

R v Yogasakaran

Defence of necessity s 155- (not for surgeon), if operating under normal conditions of profession: defence of necessity does not apply

R v Mwai

Seminal fluid may be “dangerous thing” duty to disclose (now just GBH)

R v Anderson

Event may be dangerous thing

R v Crossan

Do not need sole, complete or exclusive control or charge of dangerous thing

R v Vanner

If can be proven ordinary practice, not a major breach from reasonable person- requires extensive amount, up to jury

R v Miller; R v Evans; R v Whacker- UK

A duty to take reasonable steps to minimise a danger that you have created once you become aware (or ought to have known- Whacker) what you have done: never used in NZ- Evans - contribute same as cause,

R v Myatt

When undertaking a professional task, must meet the ordinary standards of the profession, if more expertise, not held to higher standard

R v Young

Pre-existing medical conditions do not break the chain of causation

R v Chandler

Can transfer but not transform malice

R v Turner

Multiple people can share duties

R v Smith; R v McKinnon; R v Myatt

Substantial and operative test: made, imported, affirmed

R v Sheehan; R v Kamipeli

A drunken intent is still an intent: made, imported

R v Lee

Unlawful act must be dangerous, more than trivial harm (displace Myatt)

R v Vaughan; R v Turner

Contributory negligence does not break the chain of causation- Vaughn

Both- actions must be spent (use Leaitua and Ted Bohmer)

R v Cheshire

Negligent medical treatment must be so independent to break chain of causation (but not useful), many people can be charged with same manslaughter

R v Painga

Only charged once per manslaughter

R v Blaue

in s 165- refusing medical treatment and turning of life support does not break causation

R v Kerikeri

Medical treatment administered in good faith is not a intervening act

R v Hawkins

Unlawful act must be causative (epilepsy case)

Kennedy no 2

R v Leaitua; R v Ten Bohmer

A free, deliberate and informed act of a third party act of a third party will usually be an intervening act

R v Tema

R v Kuka

Omission: would or would probably not have died- also two charges of manslaughter

R v Turton

Unlawful act can be any legislation: bylaw, act

Miller v MOT