New Zealand Law/Criminal/Threatening

Threatening to kill or do gbh
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
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
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
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.

R v Cherri

 * 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)

 * 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.