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.