Case Law

Question 1

Mulcahy v R

Answer 1

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 on itself. .

Question 2

What is Conspiracy

Answer 2

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 on itself. .

Question 3

R v Sanders

Answer 3

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 4

When Conspiracy ends

Answer 4

R v Sanders

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 5

R v White

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Convicting one party

Answer 6

R v White
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.

Question 7

Inferring intent from the act

Answer 7

R v Ring
In this case the offenders 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 8

R v Ring

Answer 8

In this case the offenders 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 9

Intent - Attempts

Answer 9

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

Question 10

R v Harpur

Answer 10

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 it entirety. Considering how much remains to be done . . . is always relevant, though not determinative

Question 11

Higgins v Police

Answer 11

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 12

Case law - Physically or factually impossible (cultivation)

Answer 12

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 13

Case law - Physically or factually impossible (purchase)

Answer 13

Police v Jay

A man bought hedge clippings believing they were Cannabis

Question 14

Police v Jay

Answer 14

A man bought hedge clippings believing they were Cannabis

Question 15

Legally impossible act

Answer 15

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

Question 16

R v Donnelly

Answer 16

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

Question 17

R v Pene

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Intention to help or encourage

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

R v Renata

Answer 19

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 20

Principle offender not identified

Answer 20

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 21

Actual proof of assistance is required

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Larkins v Police

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Legal Duty

Answer 23

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 legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under section 156 of the Crimes Act 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing

Question 24

Ashton v Police

Answer 24

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 legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under section 156 of the Crimes Act 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing

Question 25

Special Relationahip

Answer 25

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

Question 26

R v Russell

Answer 26

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 27

R v Betts and Ridley

Answer 27

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 28

Parties 66(2)

Answer 28

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 29

Knowing any person to have been a party to an offence

Answer 29

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

Question 30

R v Crooks

Answer 30

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 31

Wilful blindness

Answer 31

R v Briggs
As with a receiving charge under s246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate absention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth

Question 32

R v Briggs

Answer 32

As with a receiving charge under s246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate absention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth

Question 33

Offence must be completed (accessory)

Answer 33

R v Mane

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

Question 34

R v Mane

Answer 34

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

Question 35

R v Gibbs

Answer 35

R v Gibbs

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

Question 36

To evade Justice

Answer 36

R v Gibbs

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

Question 37

Actively suppresses evidence

Answer 37

R v Levy
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

Question 38

R v Levy

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Possession for receiving

Answer 39

Cullen v R
There are four elements of possession for receiving:
(a) awareness that the item is where it is
(b) awareness that the item has been stolen
(c) actual or potential control of the item and
(d) an intention to exercise that control over the item.

Question 40

Cullen v R

Answer 40

There are four elements of possession for receiving:

(a) awareness that the item is where it is
(b) awareness that the item has been stolen
(c) actual or potential control of the item and
(d) an intention to exercise that control over the item.

Question 41

R v Lucinsky

Answer 41

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 42

Receiving (Property)

Answer 42

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 43

Knowledge at the time

Answer 43

R v Kennedy

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

Question 44

Recklessness

Answer 44

Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
- his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
- that the proscribed circumstances existed and
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

Question 45

Cameron v R

Answer 45

Recklessness is established if:

a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
- his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
- that the proscribed circumstances existed and
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

Question 46

R v Kennedy

Answer 46

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