Crim 201 exam 2026

closed book :(

Property offences

Recieiving (s246) Forgery (s 256) Blackmail (s 327)

Blackmail S 237

threatens to disclose something or to cause serious damage or endanger safety

Theft

s 219 - taking or property or using or dealing

Theft in a special relationship

s220

Obtaining by Deception

s240

Burglary

s231

Actus reas 1: property s2

definition of what property is

Davies v Police

Use of work internet for personal gain is theft - internet use is property

Dixson v R SC

digital files are property as they are capable of being owned and transferd

R v Lakeman (UK)

Distinguished Dixson “not helpful” - virtual game currancy property not the code iteslf, as the coins are capable of being stolen, information is not property

Takamore v Clarke

No proeprty in a dead body, nor in parts of one

R v Long

no longer a body because a process has transformed it and it can be property

Police v Willaims

dropped theft charges and went with interfering with a dead body

Actus reaus 2: s 218

Ownership is possession, control or interest

R v Saxton

court of appeal left open the idea that customary rights can be used as the basis for ownership

Co-ownershp

co owners can steal from eachother per s218 (2) as can civil partners (s222)

Williams v Phillips

rubish collectors found guilty of stealing as the rubish was owned by the local authority they worked for - very hard to find abandoned property

Hibbert v Mckinnan (UK)

security and private land meant that selling lost golf balls to club members was illegal as the club owned them

R v Ellerm

Crown had ownership of lake and therefore property interest in the logs that others were trying to excavate from it

Broom v Police, Police v Moodley

Using or dealing is acting inconsitently with the owner’s rights

Ilich

money is a fungible - ownership passes with posession

R v Parker

Consent must be given freely - property

Burt v Police

a claim of right needs 1. a belief in a proprietary or possessory right in the property, 2. in relation to which the offence is alleged, 3. held at the time of the conduct, 4. geniuely held, though not nessicarily reasonable

Theft in a special realtionship

s 220

R v sullivan

requires actual control of the property

R v Scale

more than a simple debt is needed - msut be money earparked for a purpose

Tallentire v r

a company’s debenture trust deed restricted how directors could deal with company funds

Whale v r

Generic obligations cannot form the basis of liability

Dishoneslty taking or using documents

s 228

Ngamu v R

Cheque theft ring - stealing, altering and depositing cheques, all were joint principles in dishonestly using documents

obtaining or loss by deception

s 240

R v Xu

automated machines can be decived

Wilkinson

property is not required to be in the vicitm’s hands at the time of deception (a new thing in action)

Morley v R

The deception must be a cause - not necessarily the only one

R v Morley

no need to prove the defendant intended to cause the outcome

Common assault

s 196

Collins v Wilcock

fundimental principle that every person’s body is inviolate

Kovalev v Police

electric shock can constitute force

Gaunt v Police

Spitting can constitute force

Mitchell v Police

standing in someone’s way is not an application for force

Taka v Police

Swerving a car at a police officer is not threatening to apply force

DPP v Smith

“the person of another” includes hair

Kovalev v Police

Indirect application of force occurs even if some step by the victim is required before the force is applied to their body

R v Young

defendant smashed car window - did not notice the person inside - held not to be assult becuase application of force was not intended - recklessnes is not enough

Psychic assault

threatens someone - s 196 common assault

R v Kerr

victim was asleep when the threat was performed - need not be aware of a psychic assault

Tuberville v Savage

no assault where no present intention to carry out the threat

Police v Greaves

Distinguished tuberville v savage - if the condition indicates the defendant does have a present intention to carry out the threat then this can constitute assault

Rozsa v Samuels

conditional threats made acting in self defence wil not constitute assault

Forgden v Wade

the “act or gesture” does not need to be an attempt at physical contact but just has to convey a threat to do so

Lazarus v Police

Intention to perform the act and to threaten the victim are needed

R v Horncastle

no need to prove intention to actually apply the threatened force

Narayan v Police

mens rea for assult can be transefed to someone else

Chandler v Police

assult mens rea can not be transformed (man means to hit a man cannot then becahrged with male asuslts female if hits her on accident)

Agrivated assault

ss 192-194, 194A, 202C

s 192 (1)

assault + futher intent relating to the commission of imprisonable offences

s 192(2)

assult + victim staus

s 193

assault + further inetnet to “injure any one” - further mens reas of causing actual bodily harm

s 194

two forms of aggrivated assult (a) child under 14 (b) male assults female

s 194A

assaults someone they are or have been in a family relationship with (can use both 194 and 194A)

202C

Assult with a weapon = 5 times the penalty

Murray v Police

most be inteitonal use of a weapon

Te Moananui v R

test is objective “circumstances that prima facie show intention to use it as a weapon”

R v McArthur

Actual bodily harm = more than transitory or trifiling

DPP v Smith

GBH refers to really serious bodily injury

Waters v R

GBH doesnt need to be life threatening, dangerous, permanent, require treatment or have lasting consequences

R v Waters - wounding

the breaking of the skin or a skin like membrane, nomally evideced by a flow of blood

R v Burr

Maiming means an injury that causes loss of a limb (or part of), or permanently deprives the use of it.

R v Rapana

disfiguring means to deform, deface, mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person - can be permanent or temporary

s 189 (1)

injures with intent to cause gbh

s 189 (2)

injures, with intent to injure, or reckless disregard

s190

injures someone where if death had resulted it would have been manslaugher

s 191 (2)

injures someone with inention related to the ommsion of an offence

s 188(1)

wounds, maims, disfigues or casues GBH with intent to cause GBH

s 188 (2)

wounds, maims, disfigures or causes GBH, with intent to injure or reckless disregard

s 191 (1)

wounds, maims disfigures or casues GBH - related to an imprisonable offence

s 189 A

restriciting breathing or blood circulation - intention or recklessness

s 197

stupefies or renders someone unconscious- intentionally

R v Sturm

stupefy means to casue an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person with really seriously interferes with that persons mental or physical ability to act in a way that might hinder an intended crime

s 201

intentionally cuases or produces disease or sickness in another person

Defence of victim consent

per s 20(1) and R v Lee, r v Barker - honest genunine belief in consent needed

S v R

adopts the glazebrook sliding scale of harm - more serious the harm intended or risked more likley public policy will exculde victim consent

Young v attorney-general

defence of common intercourse

s 59(1)

defence of domestic disicpline - parent - reasoable force + crieria in (3)

s 128

sexual violation

S128A (3)

Unconscious people cannot consent

R v S, Nixon

R v S still consider mens rea for reasonable grounds if victim is asleep, Nixon says no mens rea for reasonable grounds as law says no consent

r v ennever

introduction as less than penetration

r v everson

consent can be withdrawn

r v annas

consent must be voluntary and deliberate

r v brewer and w v r

mere submission does not constitute consent

Christian v R

connnesnt cannot be inferred because the victim did not protest or resist, however, the law does not require positive consent

R v Herbert

A vitcim’s fear may negate consent, but the defendant can still have reasonable grounds for thinking they’ve given consent

R v Isherwood

being under the influence is not nesiscarily impocatiblae with consent - it is a question of degree

Howard

factors - no comprehension of proposed penetration, no understanding for penitration as a sexual character, not able to appreciate they can consent or refuse

R v Papadimitropolous

sex with someone you thaought you were married to does not constitute mistaken identity

R v Devonald (uk)

mistake as to purpose can vitiate consent

R v Daniels

assistance by victim does not negate lack of consent

R v clarke R v mustafa

reasonable grounds for belief in consent is and objective test looking at a reasonable person in the shoes of the accused

Taniwha v R

obiter suggest factors such as age may be relveant (reasonable person of same age)