Jump to content

New Zealand Law/Criminal/Threatening

From Wikiversity

Offences

[edit | edit source]

Threatening to kill or do gbh

[edit | edit source]

Either:

  1. threatening to kill or do gbh; or
  2. sending or causing to be received any letter or writing that contains a threat to kill or do gbh knowing the contents thereof.


  • Note: The threat need not be communicated to the person threatened, but it must be communicated.

Threatening to destroy property

[edit | edit source]

Sending or causing to be received any writing (knowing the contents thereof):

(a) threatening to destroy or damage any property; or
(b) threatening to destroy or injure any animal,
except where:
(i) lawful justification/excuse; or
(ii) claim of right

Threatening to cause significant disruption

[edit | edit source]

Without lawful justification or reasonable excuse:

(a) causing the a significant disruption of:
(i) the activities of the civilian population of NZ
(ii) the infrastructure of NZ
(iii) the civil administation of NZ (including local govt, DHBs, school board trustees); or
(iv) the commercial activities
(b) by either:
(i) threatening to do an act likely:
(A) result in risk to anyone’s health
(B) cause major property damage
(C) cause major property loss
(D) cause major damage to the national economy; OR
(ii) communicating information about an act that one believes to be false.


  • Note: does not include protests, advocacy, dissent, strikes, lock-outs or other industrial action.

Threatening dwelling places

[edit | edit source]

With intent to intimidate or annoy any person:

(a) breaking or damaging, or threatening to break or damage, any dwelling place;
(b) by the discharge of firearms or otherwise, alarming or attempting to alarm, any person in a dwelling place.

Cases

[edit | edit source]

R v Cherri

[edit | edit source]
  • Facts
Woman made repeated threatening calls to police officer while drunk.
  • Held
1. Prosecution must prove that what was said was:
(a) intended as a threat; and
(b) intended to influence the mind of the recipient.
2. Prosecution need not prove:
(a) intention to carry out threat; or
(b) capability to carry out threat.
3. Intoxication is a possible defence, in that defendant did not know what she was doing, but there must be sufficient evidence.

Police v Goldie (Note)

[edit | edit source]
  • Facts
A defendant need not intent to carry out a threat.
  • Held
1. The threat must be made intentionally - ie. consciously and voluntarily; and
2. The defendant must have intended that the threat be taken seriously - ie the defendant must intent to influence the mind of the person to whom it is addressed.