Association Flashcards
Conspiracy section 310(1)
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
Defines conspires
Two or more people forming an agreement to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means
R v Mulcahy
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 (intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself
Can a conspiracy involve an omission?
Yes. It can be an agreement between the parties not to act. For example a security guard deliberately leaving a door unlocked that he would normally secure so that his associates could burgle the place
Can you withdraw from an agreement?
No. Once the agreement is made with the required intent the conspiracy is complete. If you don’t agree to it in the first place and withdraw that’s algood
When is a conspiracy complete?
Once the agreement is made with the require intent
R v Sanders (when a conspiracy ends)
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 it’s performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged
What is the mens Rea and Actus Reus for an agreement?
Actus Reus: Actual agreement
Men’s Rea: an intention of those involved to agree and an intention that those involved in the agreement are going to pursue the relevant course of conduct
What are some things that can help prove the Actus Reus of an agreement?
Physical acts, words or gestures, whether express or implied
A verbal agreement, there is no need for them to have made a decision on how they will actually commit the offence
R v Collister
Intent can be inferred by:
-the offenders actions and words before during and after the event
-the nature of the act
-the surrounding circumstances
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
Section 67 of the crimes act
A person is capable of conspiring with her or her spouse or civil union partner or wis his or her spouse or civil union partner and any other person
What is the difference between offence and crime?
Nothing. They’re basically the same and are described as any act or omission that is punishable on conviction under any enactment, and are demarcated into four categories described in section 6
Define omission
The action of excluding or leaving our someone or something, a failure to fulfil a moral or legal obligation
R v sanders (jurisdiction)
It was deemed sufficient if one act or omission forming part of the offence or any event necessary to the completion of any offence occurs in NZ
Jurisdiction in relation to conspiracy
It is an offence not only to conspire to commit an offence in NZ, but also to conspire to do or omit in any part of the world, if doing that thing or omitting would be an offence in NZ.
What is a defence to the charge of conspiracy under section 310?
If a person conspires to commit an act overseas that is an offence in NZ but it is not an offence in the other country they cannot be prosecuted.
R v Darwish
If the conspiracy is made between two parties, one in NZ and one elsewhere the courts will likely take the view that the conspiracy was formed in both countries simultaneously
What are the two points in relation to admissibility of evidence for a conspiracy
- Anything a conspirator or joint party to a joint charge says or does to further the common purpose is admissable against the other involved, this being an exception to the hearsay rule and as such conspirators should be jointly charged.
- however explanations made after the common purpose is carried out, this can only be used as evidence against the person making it
When interviewing witnesses for conspiracy what should their statements contain
Identity of people present at the time of the agreement
With who the agreement was made
What offence was planned
Any acts carried out to further the common purpose
What should you ask a suspect in relation to a conspiracy
Intent of those involved in n the agreement
Identity of the all people
Whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose
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
What are the three elements of an attempted offence
Intent (mens Rea) to commit an 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
It also must be legally possible to commit the offence in the circumstances. A person. Can be convicted if the offence was physically impossible to commit
When can you not charge someone with an attempt?
-Where the offence invoves negligence or recklessness (manslaughter)
-an attempt is included in the definition (assault)
-the offence is such that the act has to have been completed for the offence to exist at all, demands with menace
What are two examples of offences where an attempt isn’t relevant?
Manslaughter and assault with intent to commit sexual violation
R v ring
Offender intended to steal property from the victims pocket, put his hand in and there was nothing in there. This qualifies as an attempt even though the theft wasn’t actually possible
Actus reus in attempts
Does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object
Examples of acts that might constitute as an attempt
-lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim
-enticing the victim to go to the scene of the contemplated crime
-recon of the scene of the contemplated crime
-unlawfully entering a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed
-possessing, collecting, or fabricating materials to be employed in the commission of the crime
-soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime
R v Harpur
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. How much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative
What question do you ask yourself in relation to proximity
Do the facts show mere preparation, or are the defendants acts or omissions immediately or sufficiently proximate to the intended offence
What are the two questions you ask when doing the proximity test?
-has the offender done anything more than getting himself into a position from which he could embark in an actual attempt? OR
-has the offender actually commenced execution, has he taken a step in the actual crime itself?
Who decides proximity?
A judge because it is a question of law decided based on the assumption that the facts of the case are proved
What are the four elements that help determine proximity
Fact
Degree
Common sense
Seriousness of the offence
Define impossbility
Impossbility refers to the offence being physically impossible to commit. They cannot be convicted if an offence was legally impossible to commit
What are the three case laws in relation to a physically or factually impossbility
R v Ring
Higgins v Police
Police v Jay
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 theboffnecenof attempting to cultivate cannabis
Police v Jay
A man brought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis
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
When is an attempt complete?
Once they do an act or omit an act that is sufficiently proximate to the intended offence. If they back out after that is complete the attempt is still complete
Once the acts are sufficiently proximate, what are three things that aren’t a defence
-were prevented by some outside agent from doing something that was necessary to complete the offence
-failed to complete the full offence due to ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means
-prevented from committing the offence because an intervening event made it physically impossible
What is the function of the judge and jury for an attempt?
The judge decides if the defendant left mere preparation
The jury decides whether the facts presented are proved beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, must next decide if the defendants acts are close enough to the full offence. They must believe beyond reasonable doubt the actues reus and mens Rea are present
When filing charges for an attempt can the defendant be convicted of the full offence?
If the defendant is charged with the full offence, butbif found guilty of only the attempt they can be convicted of the attempt
Where a defendant is charged with an attempt, yet the full offence is proved the defendant can only be convicted of the attempt
If there is no express punishment for an attempted offence, what is the punishment?
If the sentence for the offence is life imprisonment it is no more that 10 years then anything else is no more than half of the sentence of imprisonment for anything else
What must you prove in a case of an attempt?
Identity of the suspect
They intended to commit an offence
They did, or omitted to do, something to achieve their objective
And those acts are sufficiently proximate to the offence and progressed passed mere preparation
Section 66(1)
(a) actually commits the offence
(b) does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence
(c) abets any person in the commission of the offence
(d) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence
Section 66 (2)
Where 2 or more people 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 probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose
What do you need to prove when charging someone as a party?
The identity of the defendant AND
An offence has been successfully committed AND
The elements of the offence have been satisfied
When someone is a party to an offence, when must participation occur?
Before or during the offence and before the offence is complete
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
What is the difference between the principal or secondary offender
Principal is the person who commits the offence and secondary is the person whos assistance, abetment, incitement, counselling or procurement if sufficient
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 if the ways contemplated by section 66(1)
Does a party to an offence need to be present when the offence is committed?
No, they can do something like leaving a door unlocked
Define aids
To assist in the commission of an offence, either physically or by giving advice or information
R v Turanga
The presence at the scene is not a requirement for any form of secondary participation. The central question in any case is whether the accused did in fact help the principal party
Does the principal party need to be aware the secondary party is helping them?
It’s not always necessary, the principal party also doesn’t need to agree to the assistance
Larkin’s v Police
While it is not necessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance
What are some examples of assistance?
Keeping lookout for someone committing burglary
Providing a screwdriver to someone interfering with a motor vehicle
Telling an associate when a neighbour is away from their home so as to allow the opportunity to commit burglary
Can you aid by omission?
Liability for aiding by omission will arise where A , who has a legal duty to act and a right or power of control over B, fails to observe or discharge the duty by exercising the control to prevent B committing and offence
Define Abets
To instigate or encourage. You do not need to be present at the scene to do this
In r v loper and r v Makita what was the rule about presence and encouragement
Mere presence that does not provide encouragement is insufficient to ‘abet’. However deliberate presence intended to signify approval of the acts of the principal will support an inference of encouragement in fact
Ashton V Police
An example of a secondary party owing a legal duty to third person or to the general public is a person teaching another person to drive. The person is, in NZ, under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under s156 of the CA 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing
When may passive acquiescence be considered abetting
In the circumstances there is a special relationship between the person and the principal offender or where they owe a legal duty to the victim or to the general public
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 doing so, and by giving the encouragement and authority of his presence and approval yo his wife’s acts he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender
Define incite
To rouse, stir up, stimulate, animate, urge or spur on a person to commit an offence
Define counsels (in relation to parties)
Intentionally instigate the offence by advising a person’s on how best to commit an offence, or planning the commission of an offence for another person. Can also mean urging and can overlap with incites
Define procures
Setting out to see that something happens and taking the appropriate steps to ensure that it does.
The secondary party deliberately causes the principal party to commit the offence. Stronger connection than in aiding, abeting or inciting
Define common intention
Where two or more offenders form a common intention and embark on a joint enterprise together (commit an offence) all who entered into the agreement can be charged as parties to that offence.
They can also be charged if the other person commits another offence which is a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose
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 for the violence used
What is a question of fact?
Something the jury must decide in relation to if the defendant knew that furthering their aim in a particular way would result in another of the parties committing a particular offence
What are the two qualifications in the general rule for probable consequence?
1: there is no requirement that person A knows or forsees the precise manner which offence B is to be committed by person B. Person A need only realise that an offence of that type is probable
2: there is no requirement that person As foresight of offence B include any appreciation of the consequence of the physical elements of the offence committed, but for which no mens Rea element is required