Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CIB > ASSOCIATION > Flashcards

ASSOCIATION Flashcards

1
Q

Conspiracy to Commit Offence
Section 310(1) CA 1961

A

Conspires
- 2 or more people forming an agreement to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful means

Mulcahy v R: once they make an agreement the very plot is an act in itself

R v Collister: Does a deliberate act with intent to get a specific result. Intent inferred from the circumstances, actions and words said before during and after the event, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the act itself

With any person
- Gender neutral and proven by judicial notice and circumstantial evidence

To commit any offence
- An act or omission that is punishable on conviction under any enactment

OR

To do or omit, in any part of the world

Anything of which the doing or omission in NZ would be an offence

R v Darwish: if conspiracy is made in NZ and elsewhere the courts will likely view that the conspiracy was form in both countries simultaneously. Given NZ is one of those countries, it will lie within the jurisdiction of the NZ court

R v Sanders: it was deemed sufficient if one act or omission forming part of an offence or “any event necessary to the completion of any offence” occurs in NZ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Conspires

A

Two or more people forming an agreement to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Mulcahy v R (conspires)

A

Relies on two or more people forming an intention and with the agreement to carry out the offence

Once they make an agreement, the very plot is an act in itself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Can a conspiracy involve an omission (Failure to act)?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Can you withdraw from an agreement?

A

A person is still guilty of conspiracy if they withdraw after the agreement was made

However, if a person withdraws before the actual agreement they will not be liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

When is a conspiracy complete?

A

Once the agreement is made, accompanied by the require intent

It does not require any further progression towards its completion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Sanders
(When a conspiracy ends)

A

A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement

The conspiratorial agreement continues until they have carried out their objective or until it is abandoned, or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the Mens Rea and Actus Reus for an agreement?

A

MENS REA
- An intention of those involved to agree, and
- An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those parties to the agreement

ACTUS REUS
- An agreement between two or more people to put their common design into effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are some things that can help prove the Actus Reus of an agreement?

A

Physical acts, words or gestures (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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Collister (Intent)

A

Does a deliberate act with intent to get a specific result

Intent inferred from the circumstances:
- Actions and words said before, during and after the event
- The nature of the act
- The surrounding circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v White
(unknown identities)

A

Where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Conspiring with Spouse or Partner
Section 67 CA 1961

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the difference between offence and crime?

A

Nothing

They’re basically the same and are described as:
- Any act or omission that is punishable on conviction under any enactment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Define Act and Omission

A

ACT
- To take action or do something
- To bring about a particular result

OMISSION
- The action of excluding or leaving out someone or something
- A failure to fulfil a moral or legal obligation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Sanders
(Jurisdiction)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Jurisdiction in relation to conspiracy

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Conspiracy to Commit an Offence Overseas (s310)
defence

A

If a person conspires to commit an act overseas, it is a defence to a charge of conspiracy if they can prove that the act or omission is not an offence under the law of the country where it was to be carried out

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v Darwish
(Conspiracy between NZ and other country)

A

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

Given NZ is one of those countries, it will lie within the jurisdiction of the NZ courts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are the two points in relation to admissibility of evidence for a conspiracy

A
  • Independent evidence of the conspiracy can be admitted as evidence against the co-conspirator’s
  • Explanation’s made after the common purpose can only be used as evidence against the person making it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

When interviewing witnesses for conspiracy what should their statements contain?

A
  • The identity of 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What should you ask a suspect in relation to a conspiracy?

A
  • The existence of an agreement to commit or omit something that would amount to an offence
  • The intent of those involved
  • The identity of those involved
  • Whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Can you file a charge of conspiracy when a substantive offence can be proved?

A

Where a substantive charge can be proved you should avoid laying a conspiracy charge, unless the substantive charges fail to adequately represent the total criminality of the offending encountered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What must you prove for cases of attempt?

A
  • The identity if the suspect/s
  • They intended to commit an offence
  • They did, or omitted to do, something to achieve their object
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What are the three elements of an attempted offence

A

MENS REA
- An intent to commit an offence

ACTUS REUS
- An act that they did or omitted to do to achieve that end

PROXIMITY
- That their act or omission was sufficiently close to the full offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

When can you not charge someone with an attempt?

A
  • The criminality depends on recklessness or negligence (Manslaughter)
  • An attempt to commit an offence is included within the definition of the offence (Assault)
  • The offence is such that the act has to have been completed for the offence to exist at all (Demand with menace)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What are two examples of offences where an attempt isn’t relevant?

A
  • Manslaughter
  • Assault with intent to commit sexual violation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

R v Ring (Attempt)

A

The offender intended to steal property by putting his hand into the victims pocket but the pocket was empty, so he did not obtain anything

This still qualifies as an attempt even though the theft wasn’t actually possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

A question of fact (conspiracy)

A

Whether the intent exists or not is a question of fact, a question that the jury decides

  • The jury decides whether the facts presented by the Crown have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and if the defendant’s acts are close enough to the full offence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Actus reus in attempts

A

Does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object

The act must be immediately or proximately connected with the intended offence and goes beyond the (too remote) stage of mere preparation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Examples of acts that might constitute as an attempt

A
  • Lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim
  • Enticing the victim to go to the scene of the contemplated crime
  • Doing a 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

R v Harpur (Attempt)

A

The court views the conduct cumulatively up until the conduct in question stops. How much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What question do you ask yourself in relation to proximity

A

Do the facts show mere preparation, or are the defendants acts or omissions immediately or sufficiently proximate to the intended offence?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What are the two questions you ask when doing the proximity test?

A
  • Had the offender done anything more to embark in an actual attempt?
    OR
  • Has he taken a step in the actual crime itself?

If yes, then we can say there has been an attempt as a matter of law

If no, then the conduct is classed as preparation and is not an offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Who decides proximity?

A

It is a question of law, decided by the Judge, based on the assumption that the facts of the case are proved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What are the four elements that help determine proximity?

A

The acts carried out by the defendant may be look at collectively when determining proximity. You must take into consideration:

  • Fact
  • Degree
  • Common sense
  • The seriousness of the offence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Define Impossibility

A

A person can be convicted of an attempt to commit an offence that was physically impossible to commit, but cannot be convicted of an offence that was legally impossible to commit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What are the three case laws in relation to a physically or factually impossible?

A
  • R v Ring
  • Higgins v Police
  • Police v Jay

In these cases it was held that the offenders could be convicted of an attempt, because they acted with criminal intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Higgins v Police (Physically or factually impossible)

A

A person growing tomato plants believing they were cannabis plants. It is possible to commit the offence of ‘attempting to cultivate cannabis’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Police v Jay
(Physically or factually impossible)

A

A man brought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

R v Donnelly (Legally impossible act)

A

Where stolen property has been returned to the owner, 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What did the Court decide despite Donelly’s Mens rea and Actus reus?

A

It was legally impossible for him to receive stolen property as those goods were no longer deemed to be stolen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

When is an attempt complete?

A

An attempt is complete when the defendant commits an act that is sufficiently proximate to the intended offence, even if they then change their mind and voluntarily withdraw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Once the acts are sufficiently proximate, what are three things that aren’t a defence

A

The defendant:

  • Was prevented by some outside agent from doing something that was necessary to complete the offence (Interruption from Police)
  • Failed to complete the full offence due to ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means (Faulty bomb did not explode)
  • Was prevented from committing the offence because an intervening event made it physically impossible (Property has been removed before intended theft)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What is the function of the judge and jury for an attempt?

A

THE JUDGE MUST DECIDE
- Whether the act was sufficiently proximate to the full offence
- Whether the defendant’s actions were more than mere preparation

THE JURY THEN DECIDES
- Whether the facts presented by the Crown have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and if so, whether the defendant’s acts are close enough to the full offence
- And whether the defendant intended to commit the full offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

When filing charges for an attempt can the defendant be convicted of the full offence?

A
  • Where a person is charged with the full offence, but they are found guilty only of an attempt they may be convicted of the attempt
  • Where a person is charged with the attempt, but the evidence establishes that the defendant did in fact commit the full offence, they can only be convicted of the attempt
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

If there is no express punishment for an attempted offence, what is the punishment?

A

s311(2) CA 1961
If the sentence for the full offence is life imprisonment then it is no more that 10 years, in any other case it is half of the sentence of imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Parties to Offences
Section 66(1) CA 1961

A

(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

Deals with situations where the people involved are a party to the intended offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What do you need to prove when charging someone as a party s66(1)(a)-(d) ?

A
  • The identity of the defendant AND
  • An offence has been successfully committed AND
  • The elements of the offence s66(1) have been satisfied
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

When someone is a party to an offence, when must participation occur?

A
  • Before or during the offence
  • Before the offence is complete

If a person was reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged, they are not liable. They must intentionally be helping

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

R v Pene (Party to)

A

A party must intentionally help or encourage, it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What is the difference between the principal or secondary offender

A

PRINCIPAL
- The person who commits the offence s66(1)(a)

SECONDARY
- Someone who assists the principal offender either before or during the commission of an offence
- The person whose assistance, abetment, incitement, counselling or procurement is sufficient under s66(1)(b)(c) or (d)
- They do not need to know the precise detail involved in planning or committing the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

R v Renata (Party to)

A

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 section 66(1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Does a party to an offence need to be present when the offence is committed?

A

No, they can do something like leaving a door unlocked

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Define Aids

A

To assist in the commission of an offence, either physically or by giving advice and information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

R v Turanga (Aids)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Does the principal party need to be aware the secondary party is helping them?

A

It’s not always necessary, the principal party also doesn’t need to agree to the assistance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Larkins v Police (Proof of assistance)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

What are some examples of assistance?

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Can you aid by omission?

A

Yes, if a person, who has a legal duty or power of control, fails to observe or discharge the duty to prevent someone from committing an offence

A police officer stands by and watches someone getting beaten up and doesn’t help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Define Abets

A
  • To instigate or encourage, urge another person to commit an offence
  • You do not need to be present at the scene to do this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

In R v Loper and R v Makita what was the rule about presence and encouragement?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Ashton v Police
(Legal duty)

A

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

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

When may passive acquiescence be considered abetting

A

In circumstances where 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

R v Russell
(Special relationship)

A

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 to his wife’s acts he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender

Wife drowns herself and children in pool after argument and husband watches

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Define Incite

A

To rouse, stir up, stimulate, animate, urge or spur on a person to commit an offence

fan cheering on another fan who is assaulting a protester

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Define Counsels

A
  • 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

An offender found with a letter of instructions on how to blow up a safe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Define Procures

A
  • 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
  • May be carried out by fraud, persuasion, words or conduct, such as an offer of payment

A woman hires a hitman to kill her husband and offers money or sexual services

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Define Any Person

A

Any person carries its natural meaning and means any other person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Parties to Offences
Section 66(2) CA 1961

A

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 a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose

Deals with situations where the people involved are a party to the intended offence and a party to any secondary offence committed in pursuance of the intended offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Define Common Intention

A
  • Where two or more offenders form a common intention and embark on a joint enterprise together, 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
  • However, if one offender goes beyond what was agreed, then the others are not liable for the unauthorised act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

R v Betts and Ridley (common intention)

A

If no violence is contemplated but the principal offender uses violence, the secondary offender will not be liable

robs a man on the way to the bank, strucks the man in the head that he ends up dying

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What is a question of fact? (Party to)

A

The jury must decide whether the defendant knew that furthering their common aim in a particular way would probably result in another of the parties committing a particular offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

What are the two qualifications in the general rule for probable consequence?

A

QUALIFICATION 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

QUALIFICATION 2
- There is no requirement that person A’s 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

74
Q

A person charged as a party to murder will be guilty of murder if they:

A
  • Intentionally helped or encouraged it
  • Foresaw murder as a real risk in the situation
75
Q

A person charged as a party to manslaughter will be guilty of manslaughter if they:

A
  • Knew there was a real risk of killing short of murder
  • Foresaw a real risk of murder, but the killing occurred in circumstances different from those contemplated
  • Can be expected to have known there was an ever-present real risk of killing
76
Q

What is an innocent agent?

A
  • Used by the offender to carry out actus reus
  • Unaware of the significance of their actions
  • Used as the mechanism and cannot be convicted as a secondary party

An offender gives the waiter a glass of poisoned wine who then gives it to the victim

77
Q

How do you establish involvement of parties?

A
  • A reconstruction of the offence committed may indicate the principal offender had help
  • The principal offender saying they had help
  • Someone else admitting they helped
  • Someone witnessing another person’s involvement
  • Receiving information that other people were involved
78
Q

What was held in R v Hartley in relation to an accomplice

A

That an accomplice can be convicted of a lesser offence than the principal offender

In the case of a gang shooting an accomplice could be convicted of manslaughter and the principal offender could be convicted of murder

79
Q

When filing a charge under section 66(1) what is the charge wording?

A
  • The same as for the principal offender however preface the charge words with ‘was party to’
  • At the end of the charge add:
    ‘In that you did aid, abet, incite, counsel or procure (use one or a combination of these words) in the commission of the said offence’
80
Q

It is not legally necessary to refer to s66 in the charge however, when must the prosecutor advise the court the defendant is charged as a party?

A

Before:
- The summary of facts is read out on a guilty plea
- Evidence is heard in a judge alone trial

81
Q

What is the punishment if you are parties to an attempted offence?

A

s311(2) CA 1961
If the sentence for the full offence is life imprisonment then it is no more that 10 years, in any other case it is half of the sentence of imprisonment

82
Q

What is the difference between “aiding and abetting” and “inciting, counselling and procuring”?

A

AIDING AND ABETTING
- Requires the aider or abettor to be present at the scene before or at the time the offence is committed

INCITING, COUNSELLING AND PROCURING
- Describes the actions taken before the offence is carried out

83
Q

What is the punishment for AATF

A

Life= 7 years
More than 10 years = 5 years
Anything else no more than half

84
Q

When was the spouse/civil union partner exception changed?

A

2019

85
Q

With AATF what status does the primary offence need to be?

A

The primary offence needs to be complete

86
Q

R v Crooks (Knowledge)

A

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

87
Q

What knowledge must the accessory possess at the time they’re giving assistance

A
  • An offence has been committed AND
  • The person they are assisting was a party (principal or secondary) to that offence

If knowledge comes after they have assisted, then they are not liable as an accessory

88
Q

R v Briggs (Wilful blindness)

A

Knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth

89
Q

When is a person considered wilfully blind?

A
  • A person deliberately shuts their eyes and fails to enquire, knowing what the answer would be
  • When the person realises the likely truth of the matter but refrains from enquiring in order not to know
90
Q

Accessory after the Fact
s71(1) CA 1961

A

Knowing
- means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to a relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient

R v Crooks: the accessory must know that at the time of giving assistance they knew an offence has been committed and the person they are assisting was a party to that offence. Their knowledge existed at the time of giving assistance

Any person to have been
- Gender neutral and proven by judicial notice and circumstantial evidence

Party to
- actually commits an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit an offence, abets any person in the commission of the offence, incites counsels procures any person to commit the offence

An offence
- an act or omission punishable on conviction under any enactment

Receives
- harbouring, hiding, offering shelter

comforts
- provide food, accomodation, clothing

assists
- act as lookout, promote transport, give false information

that person

OR

tampers with
- alters evidence

OR

actively suppresses
- conceals or destroys

any evidence against him

in order to enable him to escape after arrest OR avoid arrest OR conviction

R v Collister: does a deliberate act with intent to get a specific result. Actions and words said before during and after the event, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the act itself

91
Q

R v Mane (AATF)

A

To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence

A person was charged as an AATF to murder however assistance was given after the victim was shot and before the victim died. The Crown withdrew the charge and substituted it to a pervert the court of justice charge

92
Q

What is an example of receiving , comforting or assisting

A

RECEIVING
- Harbouring an offender or offering them shelter
- Hiding them in a basement, offering shelter

COMFORTING
- Providing shelter, accomodation, food and clothing

ASSISTING
- Acting as a lookout, providing transport, providing false information as to an offender’s whereabouts

93
Q

What’s an example of tampers with evidence and actively suppresses evidence

A

TAMPERS
- To alter the evidence against the offender

Modifying an offenders telephone records to conceal communications that might implicate them

ACTIVELY SUPPRESSES
- Encompasses acts of concealing or destroying evidence against an offender

Bloodied clothing is washed repeatedly to remove evidence or set it alight to destroy the clothing

94
Q

In relation to destruction of evidence what needs to be proved?

A

The test is whether what was tampered with or suppressed “could be” evidence not whether it would have been evidence had it not been destroyed

95
Q

Can you be charged with attempting to be an accessory

A

Yes

In R v DH the appellant was charged with attempting to be an AATF for murder by unsuccessfully trying to dispose a weapon in a fatal robbery

96
Q

Is there a requirement that the offender is directly assisted by the accessory?

A

No, they can still be an AATF even if they are not directly assisting

97
Q

When an innocent agent is employed by an accessory, who is liable for the actions?

A

The actions of the innocent agent will be the held to be the actions of the accessory

98
Q

What must the accessories intent be?

A

For someone to be held liable as an AATF, the intent required at the time of providing the assistance is that such assistance will enable the offender to:

  • Escape after arrest
  • Avoid arrest
  • Avoid conviction

Mere knowledge that an act is likely to help an offender is insufficient in itself

99
Q

In relation to AATF, what needs to be proven in relation to the primary offence?

A

The AATF is entitled to insist on proof that the alleged offence was committed and to challenge that proof, regardless of whether a guilty plea has been entered or a conviction recorded against the offender

100
Q

When can you charge someone as being an AATF when they have received goods dishonestly obtained?

A

Where receiving those goods is done with a view of helping the offender and enabling them to evade justice

101
Q

Define formal statement

A

A statement that is to be treated as evidence on oath given in a judicial proceeding within the meaning of s108 CA 1961 (perjury)

102
Q

What is the punishment for perjury s109(1)?

A

7 years

103
Q

Punishment of Perjury
s109(2)

A

If perjury is committed to get someone convicted of an offence punishable no less than three years, then the punishment for the perjury is a maximum of 14 years

104
Q

Penalty for False Oaths s110 CA 1961

A

Not exceeding 5 years

105
Q

False Declaration penalty
s111 CA 1961

A

Not exceeding 3 years

106
Q

Evidence of perjury, false oath or false statement
s112 CA 1961

A

No one can be convicted of perjury, false oath, or false statement on the evidence of one witness only, unless their evidence is corroborated by a material particular implicating the defendant

107
Q

Penalty for Fabricating Evidence
s113 CA 1961

A

Not exceeding 7 years

108
Q

Perjury
s108(1) CA 1961

A

A witness making any
- a person who gives evidence and can be cross examined in a proceeding, includes someone who is giving, previously gave or will give evidence

Assertion as to any matter of
- something declared or stated positively

fact
- an actual thing done, occurrence or event

opinion
- tends to prove or disprove facts

belief
- a subjective feeling regarding the validity of an idea or set of facts

OR

knowledge
Simester and Brookbanks: knowing, or correctly believing

In any judicial proceeding
- any proceedings held in a court of justice

Forming part of that witnesses evidence
- given the ordinary way personally in court or by affidavit, the alternative way using screens DVD or CCTV, or any other way provided for under this act or any other act

on oath
- religious belief, sworn on bible

Known by that witness to be false

AND

Intended to mislead the tribunal

109
Q

What is a witness?

A
  • A person who gives evidence and is able to be cross examined in a proceeding
  • It includes someone who is giving evidence, previously gave evidence or will give evidence
110
Q

What is an assertion?

A

Something declared or stated positively

often with no support or proof of the assertion’s accuracy

111
Q

Opinion evidence by lay witnesses

A

s24 EA 2006
- A witness may state an opinion in evidence in a proceeding if that opinion is necessary to enable the witness to communicate, or the fact finder to understand, what the witness saw, heard, or otherwise perceived

112
Q

Define belief

A
  • A subjective feeling regarding the validity of an idea or set of facts
  • It is more than mere suspicion and less than knowledge
113
Q

Define knowing

A

Knowing, or correctly believing

The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot know something that is false (Simester and Brookbanks)

114
Q

Can you be charged with perjury if you give evidence via AVL from another country?

A

Yes, because remote participation is considered as taking place at the hearing

This means that giving a false evidence from another country would equate to perjury in NZ and falls within the NZ jurisdiction

115
Q

How can evidence be given in a proceeding?

A

ORDINARY WAY
- Personally in court or by affidavit

ALTERNATIVE WAY
- Such as CCTV, DVD, screens etc

ANY OTHER WAY
- Provided for under this act or any other enactment

116
Q

Difference between oath, affirmation and declaration

A

OATH
- Religious belief, swear an oath on the bible

AFFIRMATION
- Verbal or written declaration without reference to religious belief

DECLARATION
- A witness under 12 who promises to tell the truth

117
Q

When is the offence of perjury complete?

A

At the time the false evidence is given and accompanied by the intention to mislead the tribunal

if intention is absent, there is no offence

118
Q

What happens if someone gives false evidence and then changes their mind and tells the tribunal it’s false

A

There is no defence, they are still liable for perjury

119
Q

When is corroboration required?

A

Corroboration is only required when someone is charged with perjury, false oaths and false statements or declarations and treason

120
Q

Why does perjury need corroboration

A

Don’t want to make it too easy to prosecute for perjury, this may discourage people from giving evidence

121
Q

Conspiring to defeat justice
s116 CA 1961

A

Conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice

7 years

122
Q

Examples of defeats the course of justice

A
  • Doing something with intent that proceedings don’t take place
  • Discourage a victim from pursuing a complaint
123
Q

What are examples of misleading justice

A
  • Preventing a witness from testifying
  • Wilfully going absent as a witness
  • Threatening or bribing a witness
  • Arranging a false alibi
  • Giving Police false information to obstruct their enquiries
124
Q

Corrupting Juries and Witnesses
s117 CA 1961

A
  • Dissuades or influence
  • Attempts to dissuade or influence
  • by threats, bribes or other corrupt means
    OR
  • The person or member of a jury accepts the bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence
125
Q

When commencing a prosecution for perjury who should you get permission from?

A

Recommended by the courts or directed to do so by the commissioner of Police. You can begin enquiries into the allegation of perjury without permission though

126
Q

What are the two ways complaints of perjury arise?

A
  • An individual may complain that someone has perjured themselves
  • A judge may state or direct in a court recommendation that the Police undertake enquiries into the truth of the evidence given by a witness
127
Q

What should a judge do when there is no corroborating evidence of perjury?

A

Stop the case at the close of the prosecution case and direct an acquittal

128
Q

What charge encompasses both civil and criminal proceedings?

A

Conspiring to defeat the course of justice

129
Q

What are the two main points to be covered when interviewing a suspect for perjury?

A
  • Whether the suspect knew their assertion was false and
  • Whether they intended to mislead the tribunal governing proceedings
130
Q

What are the punishments for receiving?
s247 CA 1961

A

Over $1000: 7 years
$500 - $1000: 1 year
Under $500: 3 months

131
Q

Receiving
s256(1) CA 1961

A

Receives
- the defendant has received that property from another. It is complete as soon as they have possession or control over the property or helps in concealing or disposing it

R v Cox: possession has 2 elements. Actual and potential physical control and mental, a combination of knowledge of possession and an intention to exercise it

Cullen v R: there are 4 elements for receiving. Awareness that the items is where it is, that the item is stolen, actual or potential control of the item, an intention to exercise control over the item

Any property stolen
- any real or personal, estate, interest, money, electricity, debt, anything in action, other right or interest

OR

Obtained by any other imprisonable offence

R v Lucinsky: the property received must be stolen or illegally obtained and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds

Knowing that at the time of receiving the property that it had been stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence

R v Kennedy: the guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving

OR

Being reckless as to whether or not the property was stolen or so obtained

Cameron v R: recklessness is established if the defendant recognised a real possibility that their actions would bring about the proscribed result, the proscribed circumstances existed and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

132
Q

What are the three elements for the ‘Act of Receiving’?

A
  • There must be property stolen or obtained by an imprisonable offence
  • The defendant must have received that property from another
  • They received it in the knowledge it had been stolen or illegally obtained, or was reckless to that possibility
133
Q

When is the act of receiving complete?

A

As soon as the offender has possession or control over the property or helps in the concealing or disposing of it

If there is guilty knowledge at that point, the offence is complete

134
Q

R v Cox (Possession)

A

Possession involves two elements:

  • Actual or potential physical custody or control
  • Mental, a combination of knowledge of possession and an intention to exercise it
135
Q

Cullen v R (Possession)

A

Four elements of possession for receiving:

  • Awareness that the item is where it is
  • Awareness that the item has been stolen
  • Actual or potential control of the item
  • An intention to exercise control over that item
136
Q

When the property is at a place, what do you need to prove in relation to the receivers control over the property?

A

The receiver arranged for it to be there or, upon discovering the property, they intentionally exercised control over it

137
Q

Does the doctrine of recent possession apply in cases of assisting in disposal or concealment of stolen property?

A

No

138
Q

Do you need to prove dishonesty in relation to receiving?

A

There is conflicting case law around this

  • R v Crooks held that there is an implied requirement that the accused acted with a dishonest intention
  • People who knowingly received stolen property with the sole unconditional intention of returning it to the lawful owner or to police commit no offence
139
Q

Define Property

A

Any real or personal, estate, interest, money, electricity, debt, anything in action, other right or interest

140
Q

R v Lucinsky (Recieving)

A

The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained (or part thereof), and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds

141
Q

Does receiving include receiving money obtained from selling drugs?

A

Yes the money has been obtained by dishonest means

142
Q

What is a voidable title?

A

A title obtained by deception, fraud, duress or misrepresentation. This means the title can be voided by the seller

The deceiver usually gains both possession and voidable title, however where property is stolen they gain possession only

143
Q

Define title

A

A right or claim to the ownership of property

A legal right to the property

Another term for title is ‘property in’

144
Q

How do you avoid a title?

A
  • Communication to the deceiver and taking reasonable step to bring it to their attention by writing a letter, text, phone call
  • Advise the police that the property was obtained by deception
145
Q

R v Kennedy (Knowledge)

A

The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving

146
Q

What happens if someone obtains property that is stolen but doesn’t know, then they find out that it’s stolen they keep it?

A

They would be guilty of theft by dishonestly dealing with the property

  • They can’t be guilty of receiving because they did not have the knowledge at the time they obtained the property
147
Q

Cameron v R (Recklessness)

A

Recklessness is established if:

  • The defendant recognized that there was a real possibility that his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
  • That the prescribed circumstances existed and
  • Having regard that risk those actions were unreasonable
148
Q

What are some examples of circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge in receiving matters?

A
  • Possession of recently stolen property
  • Removal of identifying marks or features
  • Steps taken to disguise property by altering serial numbers, painting
  • Hiding the property to avoid discovery
149
Q

Can the original thief be called to give evidence against the receiver?

A

Yes, as long as they’re being tried separately or the proceedings against the thief have been determined or concluded

150
Q

What is the Doctrine of recent possession?

A
  • Where the person is found in possession of stolen property reasonably soon after the theft
  • An inference may be drawn that the person in possession either stole the property, or received it from the thief
151
Q

What are the two points that determine whether possession of property is recent

A

The nature of the property and the surrounding circumstances

152
Q

If police watch stolen property but don’t interfere with it does this mean police have inspected and restore the property?

A

No, therefore the property will still be technically stolen. However if police do something like making a vehicle immobile it may constitute as police taking possession

153
Q

What happens to the receiver if they receive the property stolen on order

A

They are liable for receiving and as a party to the principal offence

154
Q

Is receiving property obtained outside NZ an offence?

A

Yes, if the property was obtained by an offence that would be an imprisonable offence in NZ and the receiving was done in NZ

It will be presumed that the act by which the property was obtained is an offence under the law of the place it was committed unless the defendant brings the matter up as an issue

155
Q

Who can be charged as a party to receiving?

A

The thief of the property who hands over the property to the receiver

156
Q

How does property get restored as no longer being stolen

A

Police act as an an agent or it is returned directly to the owner

157
Q

What is money laundering

A

Dealing with the proceeds of criminal activity in such a way as to make the proceeds appear to have been legitimately acquired

158
Q

What are the three stages of the money laundering cycle (UNODC)?

A
  • Placement
  • Layering
  • Integration
159
Q

What is an example of placement (first stage of money laundering cycle)

A

Cash enters the financial system

A drug dealer deposits proceeds into an associate’s bank account

160
Q

What is an example of layering (second stage of money laundering cycle)

A

Money is involved in a number of transactions

An associate transfers the money into a shell company that the offender is a director of

161
Q

What is an example of integration (third stage of money laundering cycle)

A

Money is mixed with lawful funds or integrated back into the economy appearing legitimate

The money is declared as revenue, tax is paid and then the offender pays himself director fees or a salary out of the company account

162
Q

What are the four elements of money laundering?

A
  • In respect of any property that is the proceeds of an offence (Tangible and intangible)
  • Engages in a money laundering transaction
  • Knowing or believing that all or part of the property is proceeds or an offence (proven by direct and/or circumstantial evidence)
  • Being reckless as to whether or not the property is proceeds of an offence (conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustifiable risk)
163
Q

What does conceal mean in relation to money laundering?

A
  • To conceal or disguise the property such as to convert the property from one form to another OR
  • To conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition, or ownership of the property
164
Q

What does ‘deal with’ in relation to money laundering mean?

A

Deal with it in any matter includes:

  • Property is disposed, sold, purchased, gifted
  • Transfer possession
  • Bring property to NZ
  • Remove property from NZ
165
Q

What does ‘offence’ mean under money laundering

A

Any offence that is punishable under NZ law, including any act that would be an offence in NZ if committed outside of NZ

166
Q

What are ‘proceeds’ in relation to money laundering?

A

Means any property that is derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of the offence

illicit proceeds may be laundered to avoid detection of criminal activity, to preserve fruits of crime, to further criminal enterprise. The essence of the activity is concealment

167
Q

Define ‘property’ in relation to money laundering

A

Real or personal property of any description, whether situated in NZ or elsewhere, tangible or intangible

168
Q

Under the criminal proceeds act what must the crown prove?

A

On the balance of probabilities that wealth and benefits have been accumulated through significant criminal activity

The primary purpose is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property derived from criminal activity, or that represents the value of a person’s unlawfully derived income

169
Q

Where is an asset forfeiture order approved?

A

The high court on the balance of probabilities

170
Q

What does tainted property mean?

A

Property that wholly or in part has been:

  • Acquired as a result of significant criminal activity OR
  • Directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity AND
  • Includes property derived from more than one activity as long as one of those activities is a significant criminal activity
171
Q

What is a qualifying instrument forfeiture offence?

A

Offence punishable by 5 years or more

  • Can include conspiracy or accessory or attempt to an offence where the imprisonment would be 5 years or more
172
Q

What is significant criminal activity?

A
  • 1 or more offences punishable by 5 years or more
    OR
  • Proceeds, property or benefits amount to $30,000 or more
173
Q

What does unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity mean?

A
  • A person knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived benefit from significant criminal activity
  • The person who benefited doesn’t need to be the person who was involved in the criminal activity
174
Q

When must the high court make a profit forfeiture order?

A

Balance of probabilities that:

  • The respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity within the relevant period of criminal activity
    AND
  • The respondent has interest in property
175
Q

What was held in the case of Pulman v Commissioner of Police?

A
  • Pulman sold precursors and then gave his boss the money so technically made no profit himself
  • It was held that the purpose of the regime was to prevent the ability of a person to actually profit from undertaking significant criminal activity but also the ‘chance’ that they may be able to do so
  • His appeal was denied
176
Q

When applying for a ‘Restraining Order Relating to Instrument of Crime’ what should the assessment process determine?

A
  • The value of the asset
  • Equity in the asset
  • Any third party interest
  • The cost of action in respect of the asset

Instrument of crime includes vehicles and property used in the facilitation of the offence committed

177
Q

Who can applying for a ‘Restraining Order Relating to Instrument of Crime’?

A

Only members of asset recovery units have been delegated this function by the commissioner of Police

Only they can apply for restraining orders (apart from those relating to instruments of crime) asset forfeiture orders and profit orders

Guidance should be sought from Prosecutions and/ ARU

178
Q

What must the court be satisfied of when thinking about instruments of crime?

A
  • The respondent must have been charged with a qualifying instrument forfeiture offence, or the court must be satisfied that they will be charged within 48 hours
    AND
  • RGRB that the property was used to commit or facilitate commission of the qualifying instrument forfeiture offence
179
Q

How long are restraining orders valid for?

A

One year. Then extended for one year.

Will expire when time is up or until the making or declining of an assets or profit forfeiture order, whichever is earlier

180
Q

When interviewing a suspect about money laundering where recovery action is considered what do you ask about?

A
  • Suspects legitimate income
  • Their illegitimate income
  • Expenditure
  • Assets
  • Liabilities
  • Financial records
181
Q

R v Gibbs (To evade justice)

A

GIBBS was convicted as an AATF when he and an escapee were hiding together. GIBBS left and got supplies and returns to the hiding place. His act helped the escapee in someway to evade justice

182
Q

R v Levy (Actively suppresses evidence)

A

LEVY was convicted of being an AATF after he removed equipment used by an offender after his arrest for the purpose of assisting the offender to evade justice

CIB (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions