New Zealand Law/Criminal/Threatening
Appearance
Offences
[edit | edit source]Threatening to kill or do gbh
[edit | edit source]Either:
- threatening to kill or do gbh; or
- 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.
- (i) threatening to do an act likely:
- 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.