Association Liabilities Flashcards
What are the elements of Section 72, Crimes Act 1961?
Section 72 – Attempting to commit an offence
With intent to commit an offence
Does or omits an act
For the purpose of accomplishing his object
What are the elements of Accessory after the fact?
Section 71(1) – Accessory after the fact
Knowing any person to have been a party to the offence
Receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him
In order to enable him to escape after arrest OR to avoid arrest or conviction
What is the section, act, and the elements for the offence of Perjury
Section 108 – Perjury
S108 CA1961
- A witness making any,
- Assertion as to any matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge,
- In any judicial proceeding
- Forming part of that witness’s evidence on oath,
- Known by the witness to be false and,
- Intended to mislead the tribunal.
What in the section, act, and the elements for the offence of Receiving
Section 246 – Receiving
S246 CA 1961
Every one who,
- Receives any property, stolen or obtained by any imprisonable offence,
- Knowing that property to have been stolen or so obtained, or
- Being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or so obtained.
What are the elements of Money laundering(2), Crimes Act 1961?
Section 243(2) – Money laundering
In respect of any property that is the proceeds of an offence
Engages in a money laundering transaction
Knowing or believing that all or part of the property is the proceeds of an offence OR being reckless as to whether or not the property is the proceeds of an offence
What are the elements of Section 243(3), Crimes Act 1961?
Section 243(3) – Money laundering
Obtains OR has in his or her possession
Any property (being property that is the proceeds of an offence committed by another person)
(a) With intent to engage in a money laundering transaction in respect of that property; AND
(b) Knowing or believing that all or part of the property is the proceeds of an offence, OR being reckless as to whether or not the property is the proceeds of an offence
What is the section, act, and the elements for the offence of Conspiracy
S310 CA1961
Every one who,
- 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 New Zealand would be an offence,
What was held in Mulcahy v R in relation to conspiracy?
“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.
What was held in R v Sanders in relation to conspiracy?
“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”.
What was held in R v Collister?
Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred can include:
- The offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event
- The surrounding circumstances
- The nature of the act itself
What was held in R v White in relation to conspiracy?
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.
What was held in Poynter v Commerce Commission?
New Zealand courts had no jurisdiction over a conspirator who enters into the conspiracy abroad and who never comes to New Zealand.
What was held in R v Ring in relation to attempts?
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.
What was held in 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.
What was held in 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.
What was held in Police v Jay?
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis
What was held in 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.
What was held in 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 was held in 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)
What was held in 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.
What was held in 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
What was held in 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.
What was held in 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.
What was held in 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.
What was held in 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.
What was held in R v Mane?
To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.
Knowing in Simester & Brookbanks?
Knowing means ‘knowing or correctly believing’. The defendant may believe something wrongly but cannot ‘know’ something that is false.
What was held in R v Cox?
Possession involves two elements. The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession.
What was held in 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 of the item
- An intention to exercise that control over the item
What was held in 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.
What was held in R v Kennedy?
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.
What was held in Cameron v R?
Recklessness is established if:
(a) The defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) His or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) That the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) Having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
What is a defence to conspiracy?
Section 310(3) – where under this section any one is charged with conspiring to do or omit anything anywhere outside New Zealand, it is a defence to prove that the doing or omission of the act to which the conspiracy relates was not an offence under the law of the place where it was to be done or omitted.
When is the offence of conspiracy complete?
The offence is complete on the agreement being made with the required intent. No further progression towards the completion of the offence nor further involvement by the parties involved in the agreement is required.
A simple verbal agreement to commit the offence will suffice
What is the mens rea and actus reus for conspiracy?
The mens rea 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; and
- The offenders’ mental intent must be to commit the full offence.
The actus reus of conspiracy is the actual agreement by two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct.
What does Section 67 CA61 involve?
Conspiring with 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.
What does Section 7 CA61 involve?
For the purpose of jurisdiction, where any act or omission forming part of any offence, or any event necessary to the completion of any offence, occurs in New Zealand, the offence shall be deemed to be committed in New Zealand, whether the person charged with the offence was in New Zealand or not at the time of the act, omission, or event.
When interviewing a witness regarding a conspiracy offence, what should you establish?
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
When interviewing a suspect regarding a conspiracy offence, what should you 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
Why should you not lay both a substantive charge and a related conspiracy charge?
The evidence admissible only on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges
The judge may disallow evidence as it will be too prejudicial
The addition of a conspiracy charge may unnecessarily complicate and prolong a trial
Where the charge of conspiracy is not founded on evidence or is an abuse of process, it may be quashed
Severance may be ordered. This means that each charging document may be heard at separate trials
What are the rulings around withdrawing from the agreement?
Once an agreement is made with the necessary intent, a person is still guilty of conspiracy even if they later withdraw.
However, a person can effectively withdraw before the actual agreement is made.
What does Section 72(1) CA61 involve?
Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object, is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.
