Law 201 test cases

R v Khan [2009]

Reasonable steps taken by a person exposed to family violence (MORE CLARIFICATION)

R v Proude [2009]

Victim = 37yo, mental age of 10, beaten and no medical help called depends on the facts

Has control been undertaken, legally or naturally?

R v Muai (1995)

S156 dangerous things (HIV infected semen)

R v Crossan (1998)

S156 dangerous things (owner of a car is still liable even if in the passenger seat; control is not exclusive)

R v Miller [1983]

D fell asleep and woke up to find one of his cigarettes had set fire to the mattress. Didn't do anything about it, went into another room and went to sleep. House set on fire.

Common law duty to minimize created danger.

R v Wacker (2003)

Owed a duty of care to illegal immigrants.

-D appealed case twice, arguing no duty of care was owed to him by Vs, and didn't owe duty of care to Vs as both jointly engaged in illegal operation

-COA rejected appeal and said D knew safety of Vs depended on his actions in event and clearly assumed that duty

CLARIFICATION NEEDED

R v Evans (2009)

Duty undertaken voluntarily - V, aged 16 heroin addict, lived with mother and half sister. Half sister bought her heroin and V who self injected. V overdosed and neither mother nor half sister tried to get medical help. Convicted of manslaughter. Half sister appealed claiming not to owe duty of care. Conviction upheld by CoA on basis that she had created state of affairs. Common law duty to minimize created danger.

JF v Police [2013]

Offense s145 criminal nuisance. Baby not strapped properly into car seat, reckless driving. Harm does not have to occur if risk of injury is likely.

R v Smith [1959]

Substantial and operative test. Soldier stabbed in arm and lung, then dropped twice on way to hospital and not given correct medical treatment. Principle: at the time of the consequence, the wound was a substantial and operative cause. Only if a second cause is so overwhelming that the consequence no longer flows from the original cause does the chain of causation break.

R v Cato [1976]

Substantial and operative test. If the accused cause is not minimal it is responsible

R v Myatt [1991]

Substantial and operative test. Speedboat collision. The unlawful act must be objectively dangerous in order to be culpable.

CLARIFICATION NEEDED

R v McKinnon

Substantial and operative. D hits V with fence paling, drags unconscious body into phone booth. V drowns in own blood. Argument: D did not have MR at the moment the victim drowned. Ruling: D's action was a substantial and operative cause/more than minimal.

R v Kuka [2009]

Causation for omissions: but for the omission, the victim would, or would probably not have died.

R v Pagett (1983)

Reasonable foreseeability. Woman used as a shield in police standoff and shot.

CLARIFICATION NEEDED

R v Tomars [1978]

Motorcyclist dies during car chase, establishes reasonable foreseeability test.

R v Lucas [2015]

Reasonable foreseeability test, distills Tomars.

a. did the defendant cause the victim to take action from fear? CLARIFICATION NEEDED

b. was the victim's action reasonably foreseeable by the defendant (objective)

c. Did the victim's action contribute significantly to the outcome?

R v Mackie (1973)

Reasonable foreseeability. The victim's age can be taken into account e.g. a very young child.

R v Young [2004]

Causation. Pre-existing medical conditions do not break the chain of causation, even if D does not know. (heart condition assault case)

Vaughan v R (1998)

Causation. Contributory negligence does nto break causation. Even though V volunteered to fix lift, company made dangerous. Still liable.

R v Blaue [1975]

Refusal of medical treatment does not break causation e.g. refusing blood transfusion.

R v Kennedy (no.2) [2007]

Decision to use dangerous substances breaks causation. D provided heroin, V made rational choice to inject herself and died of overdose. Choice to inject herself breaks causation.

Execeptions: young/vulnerable people and pressure situations.

R v Leaitua [2013]

V injested drugs to smuggle through airport. Follows Kennedy no.2: V chose to take the drugs.

R v Tema [2010]

D administered the drug. Could be a secondary party to the victim, but victim is dead.

CLARIFICATION NEEDED.

R v Cheshire (1991)

D shot V. V needed tracheotomy in hospital. V's wounds were almost healed but then died of rare complication as doctors failed to spot condition. D still convicted of murder.

Judgement: D's acts/omissions could still be said to have 'contributed significantly' to V's death, not breaking causation.

Only in the most exceptional cases could medical treatment be held to have broken chain of causation.

R v Wentorth [1933]

Oblique intention. Knowledge that a result is virtually certain even if it is not the purpose or desire. (pharmacist selling to known drug dealer)

Cameron v R [2017]

Recklessness. Recklessness requires D to show they recognised the consequqence as a real possibility or something that could well happen.

Liability. Common law principle of presumed MR existance if no MR is mentioned in the provision.

R v Crooks [1981]

Knowledge. Mere suspicion is not knowledge

R v Yogasakaran [1990]

Negligence. if there is a breach of the duty of s155 due to carelessnesss, it does not have to be a major departure for the doctor to be liable.

NEED CLARIFICATION

R v Hamer [2005]

Negligence, omission. V takes husband's methadone, 17 hours no ambulance. Reasonable person test is objective, but characteristics can be used to prove/disprove knowledge of a situation.

Narayan v Police [2010]

Transferred malice. Man hits woman, child falls and gets hurt, MR transferred to child

Chandler v Police [2010]

D hit woman instead of a man, still charged with common assault instead of 'man hitting woman' assault because MR can only be transferred, not changed.

Millar v Ministry of transport [1986]

Absolute libility is only imposed hen stated in clear terms in a provision.

Sttrict liability. If the activity is specialised, its more likely to be strict liability.

Buchanans Foundry v Department of Labour [1996]

Due diligence defense. Employees burned with chemicals, but employer gave them up-to-date protective gear. Reasonable steps -> not liable

Fisheries Inspector v Wareham

Strict liability test. Is there an absence of social stigma?

R v Strawbridge [1970]

Strict liability. What is the penalty for the offense?

Hobbs v Winchester Corp [1910]

Strict liability. Is it difficult to enforce without strict liability?

Waaka v Police [1987]

Strict liability. If it is a 'true crime' such as obstructing a police officer, there must be proof of MR that D knew it was a police officer, even though the provision is silent on MR. This is because the offense is 'truly criminal' (social stigma, high penalty.)

R v Kamipeli [1975]

Intoxication. Drunkenness is not a defense if the accused had MR. NZ does not differentiate between voluntary/involuntary drunkenness.

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]

Continuing act doctrine. AR can prevede the MR. D drove over PO's foot and refused to move. If at any point during the act a MR is formed, it is a crime.

R v Thabo Meli [1954]

AR preceding MR. MR for murder, D hit V over the head to try and kill, thought he succeeded. Threw the 'body' off a cliff. There was no MR for murder during throwing off a cliff because D assumed V was dead.

Ramsay v R [1967]

Reckless murder by asfixiation. Reckless murder is a weaker MR, so Thabo meli was not applied. (assault on V, then tried to cover up murder and killed her.)

Kumar v R [2016]

D may have thought V was dead when burning the 'body'. Ramsay dismissed as obiter and Thabo Meli applied.

Auckland Area Health Board v Attorney-General [1992]

Homicide. Common law definition of death: a patient with no chance of recovery on life support is dead

R v Lee [2006]

Homicide by unlawful act. Act must carry risk of more than trivial harm to be objectively dangerous.

R v Hawkins [2012]

Homicide by unlawful act. The unlawful act HAS to cause the death.

R v Fenton [2003]

Homicide by omission(?). The major departure must cause the death.

Shadrock v R [2011]

Murder for dangerous objective. (Robbery, driving, collision.) Hit her in the cause of an unlawful act.

R v Kempson

Consent can be used as a defense for an unlawful act, but in this case there was no consent given and the behaviour was reckless.

R v Taktak

Breach duty. Assumed care of an unconscious stranger, secluded her so others could not help.

R v Gedson

Negligence. Faulty helicopter blade. Reasonable person test puts reasonable person in the situation of the accused.

R v Kirikiri

Causation. Medical treatment in good faith does not break causation

R v Tarei

Causation. Turning off life support doesn't break causation