006 Flashcards
Conspiracy
Legislation and elements
Section 310 Crimes act 1961
- Conspires
- With any person
- To commit any offence OR
- To do or omit, in any part of the world,
- Anything of which the doing or omission in NZ would be an offence
7 Years Imp
(if penalty of that offence exceeds 7 years - otherwise same penalty)
Conspiracy
R v Sanders?
“A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by completion of its performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged”.
Conspiracy
Mulcahy v R?
“A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself ….”
Conspiracy
The mens rea (mental intent) necessary for a conspiracy is?
- An intention of those involved to agree, and
- An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement
- The offenders’ mental intent must be to commit the full offence.
Conspiracy
When is a conspiracy complete?
The offence is complete on the agreement being made with the required intent.
The agreement relies on two or more persons forming an agreement to commit an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
Conspiracy
The actus reus (physical element) necessary for a conspiracy is?
The actus reus of conspiracy is the actual agreement by two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct.
The physical acts, words or gestures used by the conspirators in making their agreement is what is to be considered the actus reus of a conspiratorial agreement.
Conspiracy
Withdrawing from the agreement?
A person withdrawing from the agreement is still guilty of conspiracy. However a person can effectively withdraw before the actual agreement is made.
Conspiracy
Proving Intent?
- The offenders actions and words before, during and after event
- The surrounding circumstances
- The nature of the act itself
Conspiracy
R v White?
Where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other parties (one or more people) whose identities are unknown, that suspect can still be convicted even if the identity of the other parties is never established and remains unknown.
Conspiracy
In relation to a conspiracy investigation Interview and obtain statements from suspects to establish?
- the existence of an agreement to commit an offence, or
- the existence of an agreement to omit to do something that would amount to an offence, and
- the intent of those involved in the agreement
- the identity of all people concerned where possible
- Whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose.
Conspiracy
Section 67 Crimes Act 1961?
(Conspiring with a spouse or partner)
A person is capable of conspiring with his or her spouse or civil union partner or with his or her spouse or civil union partner and any other person.
Conspiracy
A defence to conspiracy to commit an offence overseas?
The person has a defence if they are able to prove that the act is not an offence under the law of the place where it was to be committed.
Conspiracy
General rule when charging with Conspiracy?
Generally, charges of conspiracy should not be filed in situations where the specific (substantive) offence can be proved.
Conspiracy
In relation to a conspiracy investigation Interview and obtain statements from Witnesses covering?
• The identity of the people present at the time of the agreement
• With whom the agreement was made
• What offence was planned?
-Any acts carried out to further the common purpose.
Misleading Justice
Examples of conspiring to defeat/mislead justice?
- Threatening or bribing witnesses
- Threatening or bribing jury members
- Preventing a witnesses from testifying
- Wilfully going absent as a witness
- Assisting a wanted person to leave the country
- Arranging a false alibi
- Concealing the fact an offence has been committed
Conspiracy
R v Ring?
‘In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender the pocket was empty. Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were also satisfied.’
(Physically or factually impossible)
Attempts
Legislation and elements
Section 72(1) Crimes Act 1961?
- Everyone who
- Having intent to commit an offence
- Does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing their object
- Is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.
- If that offence punishable by life- penalty max. 10 years
- In any other case, not more than half the max. Punishment to which he would have been liable if he had committed the offence.
Attempts section 72(3) Crimes Act 1961?
Section 72(3) Crimes Act 1961 outlines that the accused must have done or omitted to do some act(s) that is/are sufficiently proximate (close) to the full offence.
Attempts
R v Harpur?
“[The Court may]” have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops … the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.”
Attempts
Three elements of the offence for a conviction to succeed
- Intent (mens rea)- to commit the offence
- Act (actus reus) – that they did or omitted to do something to achieve that end
- Proximity- that their act or omission was sufficiently close
Attempts
The test for proximity?
- Has the offender done anything more than getting himself into a position from which he could embark on an actual attempt? or
- Has the offender actually commenced execution; that is to say, has he taken a step in the actual crime itself?
Attempts
Once the acts are sufficiently proximate, the defendant has no defence that they:
- were prevented by some outside agent from doing something that was necessary to complete the offence; eg interruption from police
- failed to complete the full offence due to ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means, eg insufficient explosive to blow apart a safe
- were prevented from committing the offence because an intervening event made it physically impossible, eg removal of property before intended theft.
Attempts
Higgins v Police?
Where plants being cultivated as cannabis are not in fact cannabis it is physically, not legally, impossible to cultivate such prohibited plants. Accordingly, it is possible to commit the offence of attempting to cultivate cannabis.
Attempts
Police v Jay ?
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.
Attempts
What are 3 situations you are NOT able to charge someone with an attempt to commit a crime:
- The criminality depends on recklessness or negligence; ie manslaughter
- The offence was legally impossible
- An attempt to commit an offence in included within the definition of that offence, eg assault
Attempts
R v Donnelly ?
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
Attempts
Function of the judge and jury?
The judge must decide whether the defendant had left the preparation stage and was already trying to effect completion of the full offence.
The jury must decide if the whether the facts presented by the crown have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and if so, must next decide whether the acts are close enough to the full offence.
Parties
Legislation and elements
Section 66(1), Crimes act 1961
(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who-
(a) Actually commits the offence; or
(b) Does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c) Abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d) Incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
Parties
R v Pene?
A party must intentionally help or encourage - it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.
Parties
Who is the principal party?
A person will be a principal offender, and liable under s66(1)(a), where he or she personally satisfies the actus reus and mens rea requirements of the offence.
Parties
Parties, what must you prove?
- The identity of the defendant, and
- An offence has been successfully committed; and
- The elements of the offence (s66(1)) have been satisfied
Parties
Who is the secondary party?
Secondary parties are those people whose assistance, abetment, incitement, counselling or procurement is sufficient under s66(1)(b)(c)or(d).
Parties
R v Renata?
The court held that where the principal offender cannot be identified, it is sufficient to prove that each individual accused must have been either the principal or a party in one of the ways contemplated by s66(1).
Parties
R v Russell?
The court held that the accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his
children, but by his deliberate abstention from so doing, and by giving the encouragement and authority of his presence and approval to his wife’s act he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender.
Parties
Larkins v Police?
While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance.
Parties
What is the distinction between ‘aiding and abetting’ and ‘inciting, counselling and procuring’?
- Aiding and abetting require the presence of someone at the scene of the offence
- Inciting, counselling and procuring describe actions that occurred before the offence was carried out.
Parties
Ashton v Police?
An example of a secondary party owing a legal duty to a third person or to the general public is a person teaching another person to drive. That person is, in New Zealand, under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under s156 of the Crimes Act 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.
Parties
R v Betts and Ridley?
An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.
Parties
How might the involvement of parties be established?
- Reconstructing offence- this would indicate one person involved or that principal offender got advice/assistance
- Principal offender acknowledging/admitting others involved
- A suspect or witness admitting to providing aid etc
- A witness providing evidence of anothers involvement based on their observations
- Receiving information indicating others were involved
Parties
What does section 66(2) refer to?
Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
Accessory after the fact Section 71(2) – Special Relationships?
You cannot be charged with being an accessory after the fact to your spouse (legally married), or your spouse and another party. This same limitation applies to those in a civil union, but does not extend to encompass those in de facto relationships or other family relationships.
Accessory after the fact
Legislation and elements
Section 71(1), Crimes Act 1961
- Knowing any person to be a party to the offence
- Receives, comforts or assists that person OR
- Tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her
- In order to enable him or her to excape after being arrested OR
- To avoid arrest or conviction
Penalty-
Life imprisonment – max 7 years
10 years or more- 5 years
Under 10 years- ½ penalty
Accessory after the fact
Section 71, Crimes Act 1961
R v Crooks?
Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.
Accessory after the fact
Section 71, Crimes Act 1961
At the time of the assistance given, the person must know that?
- an offence has been committed, and
* the person they are assisting was a party (principal or secondary) to that offence
Accessory after the fact
Section 71, Crimes Act 1961
R v Briggs?
As with a receiving charge under s246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.
Accessory after the fact
Section 71, Crimes Act 1961
R v Mane?
To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.