Case law

Question 1

Mulcahy v R

“Mul-ca-hy” spoken like fish in finding demo when they agree to get memo out the tank

Answer 1

Mulcahy v R
Conspiracy

(The agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.)

“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 Wilcox

Will cocks his gun

Answer 2

R v Wilcox
Attempts

(The defendant must have begun to perpetrate the crime.)

The defendants act must be the commencement of the execution of the intended offence; a step in the actual crime itself. In other words, the defendant “must have begun to perpetrate the crime.”

Question 3

R v Harpur

A harp is played in specific time/place/circumstances and focus on the quality of the act

Answer 3

R v Harpur
Attempts

(Focus is on the time/place/circumstances and focus on the quality of the Defendants acts.)

“In assessing the conduct there must be a full evaluation in terms of time, place and circumstance”. What remains to be down is always relevant, but not determinative. The Court is permitted to focus more on the quality of the defendants acts and the time, place and circumstances in which they occurred, and less on abstract tests of preparation and proximity.

Question 4

R v Mane

Man! Annoyed at something completed

Answer 4

R v Mane
Accessory after the fact

(To be an accessory, acts must be after the offence is completed.)

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

Question 5

R v Crooks

Crooked - Not quite sure

Answer 5

R v Crooks
Accessory after the fact

(Must have actual knowledge or belief)

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 6

R v Briggs

Briggs is blind, bs

Answer 6

R v Briggs
Accessory after the fact

(A deliberate abstention from making enquiries to confirm suspected truth.)

As with a receiving charge under S246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from sinful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making enquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.

Question 7

R v Skivington

Husband wearing a skivvy, believes he has claim of right

Answer 7

R v Skivington
Robbery

(Defence, belief in claim of right)

“Larceny [or theft] is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the offence is not made out.”

Question 8

R v Lapier

He stole it at La Pier, it was complete

Answer 8

R v Lapier
Robbery

(Robbery is complete at the time of the taking)

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

Question 9

R v Peat

Peat picked up the smelly sock, he wanted it, then gave it back.

Answer 9

R v Peat
Robbery

(Immediate return does not purge offence, necessary intent when taken)

As in the case of theft, the immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence, subject always to the necessary intent existing at the time of taking.

Question 10

R v Cox

Possession

(Cox had the condom IN his pocket, he KNEW it, he was gonna USE it)

Answer 10

R v Cox
Robbery - Possession

(Physical element of physical or potential custody, mental element of awareness and intent to exercise possession)

Possession involves two… elements. The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, often described as 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 11

R v Maihi

MY, HE’s cute, there’s a connection

Answer 11

R v Maihi
Robbery - Accompany

(Must be a connection between the acts of stealing and the threat of violence)

“It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing … and a threat of violence. Both must be present.” However the term “does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous…”

Question 12

R v Mitchell

Might Chill, the threat was ages ago

Answer 12

R v Mitchell
Threats - Robbery

(Threats previously made, still operating on the mind)

“There may be occasions where property is handed over to a thief as a result of threats previously made but still operating on the mind of the victim at the time… the question will be one of fact and degree in each case.”

Question 13

Peneha v Police

A penny! Ha! Pulled bag from hand

Answer 13

Peneha v Police
Robbery

(Actions forcibly interfere with personal freedom)

It is sufficient that “the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.”

though at the lower end of the scale for robbery, a small amount of violence is enough to constitute violence for that charge.

Question 14

R v Broughton

He brought on a fist and I wasn’t scared

Answer 14

R v Broughton
Threat of violence

(The presence or absence of fear on behalf of victim is not the yardstick)

A threat of violence is “the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.” The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of the nerves of the person threatened’

Question 15

DPP v Smith

Da Po Po reckon Smiths injury was really serious

Answer 15

DPP v Smith
GBH

“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.

Question 16

R v Joyce

Joy sez he was with him

Answer 16

R v Joyce
Physical proximity

(At least two persons are physically present)

“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”

Question 17

R v Galey

Galey together they wanted the same thing

Answer 17

R v Galey
Together with

(Common intention to use combined force)

“Being together” in the context of section 235(b) involves “two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.”

Question 18

R v Bentham

Bens thumb

Answer 18

R v Bentham
Anything appearing to be such

(A persons hand or fingers are not a thing)

“What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A persons hand or fingers are not a thing. If they were regarded as property … the court could, theoretically, make an order depriving the offender of his rights to them and they could be taken into the possession of the Police.”

Question 19

R v Betts and Ridley

Betts bet someone up and Ridley was just there for the riddles

Answer 19

R v Betts and Ridley
Parties

(Where no violence contemplated, principal uses violence and secondary plays no part, not liable)

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 20

R v Crossan

Crossing over from takes to detains, separate and distinct offences

Answer 20

R v Crossan
Takes away/detains

(separate and distinct offences)

Taking away and detaining are “separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking [the victim] away, the second of detaining her. The first offence was complete when the prisoner

Question 21

R v Pryce

Pryce is too high, imma detain it in the confines of my shed, in my custody

Answer 21

R v Pryce
Detains

(Active concept to keep in confinement or custody)

Detaining is an active concept meaning to “keep in confinement or custody” This is to be contrasted to the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.

Question 22

R v Cox

Consent

(If you want my COX, you gotta be a 5/5. FVFIR)

Answer 22

R v Cox
Consent

Consent must be “full, voluntary, free and informed… freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.”

Question 23

R v Mohi

Wants MOHaIr from an Angora goat, intends to shave at the TIME he TAKES him

Answer 23

R v Mohi
Intent/abduction

(Necessary intent at the time of taking)

The offence is committed at the time of taking away, so long as there is, at that moment, the necessary intent. It has never been regarded as necessary… that the crown should show the intent was carried out.

Question 24

R v Forrest and Forrest

Forrest was 2 years old

Answer 24

R v Forrest and Forrest
Proof of age

“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victims] age.

Question 25

R v Collister

Colly stir ACTION? A strange WORD in these CIRCUMSTANCES and NATURE

Answer 25

R v Collister
Intent

Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include:

• the offenders actions and words before/during and after the event.
• the surrounding circumstances.
• the nature of the act itself.

Question 26

R v Wellard

WELL AR Didn’t want to go!

Answer 26

R v Wellard
Take away

(deprivation of liberty and taking victim away from where they want to be)

The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be.

Question 27

R v Taisalika

sounds like a rugby player, nature of the blow and gash it produced show necessary intent

Answer 27

R v Taisalika
Intent

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

Question 28

Cameron v R

CAMERonreasonable RPRCU

Answer 28

Cameron v R
Recklessness

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

Question 29

R v Tipple

TIP over the cup, deliberate decision to run the risk

Answer 29

R v Tipple
Recklessness

(deliberate decision to run the risk)

Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk.”

Question 30

R v McArthur

iM CART HUR (I’m cut here) ! must be more than transitory or trifling

Answer 30

R v McArthur
Bodily harm

“Bodily harm” includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but must be more than transitory and trifling.

Question 31

R v Waters

water = flow = blood

Answer 31

R v Waters
Wounds

A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood. May be internal or external.

Question 32

R v Rapana and Murray

banana is bruised, ate in a hurry

Answer 32

R v Rapana and Murray
Disfigures

Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 33

R v Tihi

Teehee, that’s looks reckless, lets expose risk anyway!

Answer 33

R v Tihi
Agg wounding or injury

(meant to cause harm, or foresaw actions were likely to expose risk)

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a)-(c) it must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.

Question 34

R v Sturm

STURM facilitates the commission, don’t need to prove it - re agg rob

Answer 34

R v Sturm
facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence

(In facilitating crime, don’t need to prove initial crime committed)

Under section 191(1)(a) it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed.

Question 35

R v Wati

WHAT! HE wants to avoid arrest? Prove he did it first!

Answer 35

R v Wati
avoid arrest or facilitate the flight

(proof of commission/attempted of crime by person committing assault or person facilitating)

There must be proof of the commission or a attempted commission of a crime either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

Question 36

R v Sturm

sturm = sperm = stupid

Answer 36

R v Sturm
stupefies

(to effect the mind/nervous system which interferes with person so they can’t hinder the crime)

To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that persons mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime.

Question 37

R v Crossan

Crossan the bridge hurt my will too

Answer 37

R v Crossan
any violent means

(Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of will)

Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.

Question 38

R v Strawbridge

Old lady growing weed but BELIEVED strawberries

Answer 38

R v Strawbridge
guilty knowledge

(Knowledge presumed, unless evidence she believed act was innocent)

It is not necessary for the crown to establish knowledge… In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge.. presumed, but if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

Question 39

Police v Emerali

Police officer Em really?

Answer 39

Police v Emerali
useable quantity

(Must be useable quantity)

“… the seriousness of the offence of… possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.”

Question 40

Saxton v Police

Sent saxophones by the ton to Police

Answer 40

Saxton v Police
imports

(Sent it but aren’t physically with it, still liable)

To import includes “to introduce or bring in from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country.”

Question 41

R v Hancox

Han the dog cocks up and didn’t smell it in transit

Answer 41

R v Hancox
import process

(Only liable as a party to, while item still in transit)

“Importation” in the Misuse of drugs context means the introduction or bringing in from abroad or causing to be brought in from abroad.

… The process of importation exists from the time the goods enter NZ until they reach their immediate destination or… ceased to be under control of appropriate authorities and have become available to the coassignee or adressee.

Question 42

R v Rua

bREWing!

Answer 42

R v Rua
producing/manufacturing

(Produce, or manufacture broadly cover creation of controlled drugs)

The words “produce” or “manufacture” in S6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.

Question 43

R v During

Always ready DURING drug season!

Answer 43

R v During
offerring

(ready on request to supply)

“[An offer is] an intimation by the person charged to another, that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by statute.”

Question 44

R v Brown

Want some brownie? ;

Answer 44

R v Brown
offering

(making an offer, intention to be understood genuine)

“…the making of such an intimation, with the intention that it should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence.

Question 45

R v Archer

Archer loves fire

Answer 45

R v Archer
damages

(property damaged if suffers perm/temp physical harm or impairment of use/value)

Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value.

Question 46

R v Morley

More or less, how much loss

Answer 46

R v Morley
cause loss

(loss assessed by how much position prior to offence has been diminished or impaired)

“Loss… is assessed by the extent to which the complainants position prior to the [offence] has been diminished or impaired.

Question 47

Hayes v R

Hay more money! Enhanced my financial position!

Answer 47

Hayes v R
pecuniary advantage

(Enhances financial position)

A pecuniary advantage is “anything that enhances the accused’s financial position. It is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage.”

Question 48

Hayes v R

Hay said the horse! Hay is money for moneys worth!

Answer 48

Hayes v R
valuable consideration

(anything capable of being valuable consideration, money for moneys worth)

A valuable consideration os “anything capable of being valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or any other kind; in short, money or moneys worth.

Question 49

Hayes v R

Hay! Unsuccessful Hey, but still hay!

Answer 49

Hayes v R
uses

(Unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one)

“An unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one. An unsuccessful use must not be equated conceptually with an attempted one. The concept of attempt relates to use not to the ultimate obtaining of a pecuniary advantage, which is nota a necessary ingredient of the offence. Because the use does not have to be successful it may be difficult to draw a clear line between use and attempted use.”

Question 50

R v Misic

Music on paper

Answer 50

R v Misic
document

(thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record)

“Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record.”

Question 51

R v Morley

more or less, necessary intent for deception

Answer 51

R v Morley
intention to deceive

(necessary intent at time of deception)

An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practiced in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception.

Question 52

R v Love

Loved the house!

Answer 52

R v Love
duty to disclose

(Deliberate failure to disclose by someone with duty to disclose)

A deliberate failure to disclose some material matter by a person who has a duty to disclose it will come within the definition of deception.

Question 53

R v Koroheke

picture a koru looks like genetalia

Answer 53

R v Koroheke
Genetalia

The genetalia comprise the reproduction organs, interior and exterior… they include the vulva and the labia, both interior and exterior at the opening of the vagina.

Question 54

R v Gutuama

Gutuama? Guatemala? Be objective.

Answer 54

R v Gutuama
objective test

(no reasonable person in accused shoes would think complainant is consenting.)

Under the objective test the Crown must prove that “no reasonable person in the accused shoes could have thought that [the complainant] was consenting.”

Question 55

R v Koroheke

picture a koru again heke! its submitting because of fear!

Answer 55

R v Koroheke
force, threat or fear of force

(submission because of fear is not consent)

It is important to distinguish between consent that is freely given and submission by a woman to what she may regard as unwanted but unavoidable. For example, submission by a woman because she is frightened of what might happen if she does not give in or cooperate, is not true consent.

Question 56

R v Harpur

Harp, also must be close/proximate to hear it

Answer 56

R v Harpur
sufficiently proximate

(conduct viewed up to the point it stopped, its entirety and what remains)

“[The Court may] have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when 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 57

Cox v R

Cox vs Rugrat exceptional (child under 12)

Answer 57

Cox v R
consent of a child

(“exceptional and rare circumstances” that a child under 12 could give legal consent)

“Although we do not exclude the possibility that a child of ten or eleven may be able to give a full, voluntary free and informed consent to sexual intercourse, the circumstances that would justify that conclusion would be exceptional if not rare. A ten or eleven year old child may know what sexual intercourse is. She may indicate her agreement.

Question 58

Cox v R

Cox v Rugrat not reasonable (adult)

Answer 58

Cox v R
reasonable belief in child consent

(It is not reasonable for an adult to believe a child was consenting to sexual activity)

“Save in exceptional and rare circumstances… even where she indicates an agreement to the act occurring… no reasonable adult would have grounds for believing that a ten or eleven year old girl has the experience or maturity to understand the nature and significance of the act.”

Question 59

R v Court

Grabbed someones bum in Court, not right-thinking

Answer 59

R v Court
Indecency

(Conduct right-thinking people would consider an affront to sexual modesty.)

Indecency means “conduct that right-thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of [the complainant].”

Question 60

R v Leeson

Teach you a leeson! Punch then grab

Answer 60

R v Leeson
Indecent assault

(Assault accompanied by circs of indecency)

“The definition of indecent assault… is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency.”

Question 61

R v Pekepo

Peekapo! Shoot, I don’t see you!

Answer 61

R v Pekepo
intent to shoot victim

(Must have intention to shoot person)

A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof. An intention to shoot that person must be established.

Question 62

R v Donovan

DON the gun lover, drives his VAN to McArthur whose cut

Answer 62

R v Donovan
Actual bodily harm

(Actual bodily harm must not be transitory or trifling)

“Bodily harm”… includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of [the victim]… it need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.

Question 63

Police v Parker

Police saw Parker at the park “use his gun in any manner whatever”

Answer 63

Police v Parker
use in any manner whatever

(To contemplate a situation, short of firing, presenting is the same.)

“Use in any manner whatever” is to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and to present a rifle too, I think, is equivalent to or means the same thing.

Question 64

Simester and Brookbanks: Principals of Criminal Law

Simester believes b(R)ooks over banks, can believe wrong but can’t KNOW false

Answer 64

Simester and Brookbanks: Principals of Criminal Law
knowing that/being reckless as to whether or not (member of Police so acting)

(Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing” Can believe wrong but can’t KNOW false)

Knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”… the defendant may believe something wrongly but cannot “know” something that is false.

Question 65

R v Kelt

Gun in his Kelt

Answer 65

R v Kelt
has any firearm with him or her

(Close physical link & degree of immediate control)

Having a firearm “with him” requires “a very close physical link and degree of immediate control over the weapon by the man alleged to have the firearm with him.”

Question 66

Tuli v Police

Truly (Tuli)! Prima facie circs looked sufficient to establish intent mr policeman!

Answer 66

Tuli v Police
Prima facie

(Prima facie circs are sufficient to establish intent, in absence of evidence to contrary)

Prima facie circumstances are those which are sufficient to show or establish an intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.