Case Law

Question 1

Blackwell v R (2011)

Answer 1

Defines “Reckless” respect to Reckleess GBH.

Question 2

Blackwell v R (2011) two part test

Answer 2

In order to be Reckless, it must be shown that the accused:
1) Actually, turned their mind to possibility that the relevant action may cause GBH
2) Did the act anyway

Question 3

Ghandi v Jones (1970)

Answer 3

Considerations to whether a seach and seizure is lawful without warrant.

Question 4

Ghandi v Jones (1970) In the appeal, Lord Denning MR identified two situations in which seizure may occur

Answer 4

1. The seizure took place where the police entered a person’s home by virtue of a warrant.
2. The seizure was incidental to the arrest of a person, with or without a warrant.

Question 5

Ghandi v Jones (1970) - 5 principles in relation to a lawful seizure in the circumstances

Answer 5

1. Officers must believe on reasonable grounds that an offence has occurred that is of such gravity that it is a first importance to defender be brought to justice.
2. Officers must believe and reasonable grounds for the articles to be sees constitute material evidence to prove the commission of the serious offence.
3. The person in possession of the article being seized must be someone whom the officers believe on reasonable grounds is implicated in the crime.
4. The police are not permitted to retain the seized articles for longer that is reasonably necessary to complete their investigations or to create a copy of it.
5. These requirements must be assessed at the time of the seizure and are unaffected by any subsequent events.

Question 6

He Kaw Teh v Queen (1985)

Answer 6

The onus is on the prosecution to prove that accused, at the time when he had physical custody or control of narcotic goods, knew of the existence and nature, or the the likely existance and nature, of the narcotic goods in question and that the onus is discharged only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 7

R v Filippetti (1978)

Answer 7

In order to establish the offence of drug possession or supply, the possecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had ‘exclusive possession’ of the drugs in question.

Question 8

R v Rondo (2001)

Answer 8

Formulates the defintion of ‘Reasonable Suspicion’

Question 9

R v Rondo (2001) Principles

Answer 9

1. A reasonable suspicion involves less than a reasonable belief but more than possibility.
2. Reasonable suspicion is not arbitrary. Some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown. It may be based on hearsay or material which may be inadmissible in evidence, but the material must have some probative value.
3. Regard must be had to the information in the mind of the police officer at the time.

The question is then whether that information afforded (objectively) reasonable grounds for the suspicion which the officer formed.

Question 10

Streat v Blanco, Streat v Bauer (1998)

Answer 10

To conduct a lawful vehicle stop, the police need to have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind (subjective test) of which a reasonable person (objective test) armed with the same knowledge would have acted in a similar manner to police.