Association caselaw

Question 1

Mulcahy v R

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

R v Sanders (When a conspiracy ends)

Answer 2

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 its performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged.

Question 3

R v White (Two or more people)

Answer 3

R v White (Two or more people)
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 other parties is never established and remains unknown.

Question 4

R v Ring

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

R v Harpur – Several acts together may constitute an attempt

Answer 5

R v Harpur – Several acts together may constitute an attempt
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.

Question 6

Higgins v Police

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Police v Jay

Answer 7

Police v Jay

A man brought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.

Question 8

R v Donnelly – Legally impossible

Answer 8

R v Donnelly – Legally impossible
Where property stolen 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.

Question 9

R v Renata

Answer 9

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).

Question 10

Larkins v Police – Actual proof of assistance is required

Answer 10

Larkins v Police – Actual proof of assistance is required
While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of the actual assistance.

Question 11

Ashton v Police – Legal duty

Answer 11

Ashton v Police – Legal duty
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 responsible precautions, because under s156 of the Crimes Act 1961, he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.

Question 12

R v Russell – Special Relationship

Answer 12

R v Russell – Special Relationship
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.

Question 13

R v Betts and Ridley

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

R v Pene – Intention to help or encourage must exist

Answer 14

R v Pene – Intention to help or encourage must exist
A party must intentionally help or encourage. It is sufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.

Question 15

R v Crooks (Knowledge)

Answer 15

R v Crooks (Knowledge)
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.

Question 16

R v Briggs

Answer 16

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

Question 17

R v Mane - to be considered an accessory

Answer 17

R v Mane

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

Question 18

R v Cox

Answer 18

R v Cox
Possession involves two elements. The first, the physical element involves actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention. Knowledge is the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession.

Question 19

Cullen v R

Answer 19

Cullen v R
There are 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 over the item; and
An intention to exercise that control over the item

Question 20

R v Lucinsky

Answer 20

R v Lucinsky
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.

Question 21

R v Kennedy - guilty knowledge

Answer 21

R v Kennedy

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

Question 22

R v Harney

Answer 22

R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.