Association offences (Case law)

Question 1

Mulcahy v R - what does it outline? (Conspiracy)

Answer 1

Intention (conspiracy)

Question 2

Mulcahy v R - what does it state? (Conspiracy)

Answer 2

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.
The very plot is the act itself

Question 3

R v Sanders - what does it outline? (Conspiracy)

Answer 3

When a conspiracy ends

Question 4

R v Sanders - what does it state? (Conspiracy)

Answer 4

A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. It continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is completed or abandoned or otherwise discharged.

Question 5

R v White - what does it outline? (Conspiracy)

Answer 5

Parties unknown

Question 6

R v White - what does it state? (conspiracy)

Answer 6

Where you can prove that the 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

Question 7

R v Ring - what does it outline (Attempts)

Answer 7

Physical impossibility

Question 8

R v Ring - what does it state? (Attempts)

Answer 8

The offenders intent was to steal property by putting his hand in the pocket of the victim - the pocket was empty.
Despite this, he was still able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in the mind and demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were also satisfied.

Question 9

Higgens v Police - What does it outline? (Attempts)

Answer 9

Physical impossibility

Question 10

Higgens v Police - what does it state? (Attempts)

Answer 10

Where plants being cultivated as cannabis are in fact not cannabis, it is physically impossible not legally impossible to cultivate the prohibited plants therefore it is still possible to be convicted of an attempt.

Question 11

R v Jay - what does it outline? (Attempts)

Answer 11

Physical impossibility

Question 12

R v Jay - what does it state? (Attempts)

Answer 12

A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis - physical impossibility

Question 13

R v Harpur - what does it outline? (Attempts)

Answer 13

Defining situations that make an attempt

Question 14

R v Harpur - defining situations that make an attempt - What does it state? (Attempt)

Answer 14

Hundreds of offences and infinite variety of factual situations, the metes and bounds of which it was impossible for parliament to predict.

Question 15

R v Harpur - what does it state? (attempts)

Answer 15

What makes an attempt

Question 16

R v Harpur - what makes an attempt - what does it state? (attempts)

Answer 16

The court may have regard to conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point where the conduct in question stops. The defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done, is always relevant though not determinative.

Question 17

R v Donnelly - what does it outline? (Attempts)

Answer 17

Stolen property returned to owner

Question 18

R v Donnelly - what does it state? (Attempts)

Answer 18

Where stolen property has been returned to the owner OR legal title 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 been stolen or dishonestly obtained.

Question 19

R v Pene - what does it outline (Parties to)

Answer 19

To help or encourage

Question 20

R v Pene - What does it state? (Parties to)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

R v Renata - what does it outline? (Parties to)

Answer 21

Principal offender unidentified

Question 22

R v Renata - what does it state ? (Parties to)

Answer 22

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 66(1)

Question 23

Larkins v Police - what does it outline (Parties to)

Answer 23

Awareness of assistance

Question 24

Larkins v Police - what does it state (parties to)

Answer 24

While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance

Question 25

Ashton v Police - what does it outline (Parties to)

Answer 25

An example of a secondary parties legal duty to a third person / general public

Question 26

Ashton v Police - What does it state (Parties to)

Answer 26

If someone is teaching another to drive, that person is, In NZ, under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions because he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.

Question 27

R v Russel - what does it outline (Parties to)

Answer 27

Moral obligation

Question 28

R v Russel - what does it state? (Parties to)

Answer 28

The court held that the accused was morally bound to save his children. His abstention from doing so and the encouragement and authority of his presence and therefore approval of his wife’s act, he became an aider and abettor and therefore a secondary offender.

Question 29

R v Betts and Ridley - What does it outline (Parties to)

Answer 29

No violence contemplated

Question 30

R v Betts and Ridley - what does it state (Parties to)

Answer 30

In an offence where no violence 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 31

R v Crooks - what does it outline? (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 31

Knowledge

Question 32

R v Crooks - What does it state

Answer 32

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

Question 33

R v Briggs - what does it outline? (Access

Answer 33

Wilful blindness

Question 34

R v Briggs - What does it state?

Answer 34

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

Question 35

R v Mane - what does it outline (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 35

Timing of the offending

Question 36

R v Mane - what does it state? (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 36

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

Question 37

R v Gibbs - what does it outline? (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 37

“Helping”

Question 38

R v Gibbs - What does it state? (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 38

The act or acts done by the accessory must have helped the other person in some way evade justice

Question 39

R v Levy - What does it outline? (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 39

Deliberate act

Question 40

R v Levy - What does it state? (Accessory after the fact)

Answer 40

It was held that Levy had done a deliberate act in relation to the evidence against the offender for the purpose of assisting that offender to evade justice.
He had removed equipment after it had been used in the counterfeiting process and after the offenders arrest.

Question 41

R v Cox - what does it outline (Receiving)

Answer 41

Possession

Question 42

R v Cox - What does it state? (Receiving)

Answer 42

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.

Question 43

Cullen v R - what does it outline (Receiving)

Answer 43

Four elements of possession for receiving

Question 44

Cullen v R - what does it state? (Receiving)

Answer 44

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 the item

Question 45

R v Donnelly - what does it outline? (Receiving)

Answer 45

When property is returned

Question 46

R v Donnelly - what does it state? (Receiving)

Answer 46

Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title has been acquired, 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 47

R v Lucinsky - what does it state? (Receiving)

Answer 47

Property received

Question 48

R v Lucinsky - what does it state? (Receiving)

Answer 48

The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained and NOT some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds.

Question 49

Cameron v R - what does it outline? (Receiving)

Answer 49

Recklessness

Question 50

Cameron v R - what does it state? (receiving)

Answer 50

Recklessness is established if
the defendant recognised there was a real possibility that
His actions would bring about the proscribed result
The proscribed circumstances existed and
Having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable.