Case Law Flashcards
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. .
What is Conspiracy
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. .
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.
When Conspiracy ends
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.
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.
Convicting one party
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.
Inferring intent from the act
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.
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.
Intent - Attempts
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
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 it entirety. Considering how much remains to be done . . . is always relevant, though not determinative
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
Case law - Physically or factually impossible (cultivation)
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
Case law - Physically or factually impossible (purchase)
Police v Jay
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were Cannabis
Police v Jay
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were Cannabis
Legally impossible act
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
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
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.
Intention to help or encourage
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.
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)
Principle offender not identified
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)
Actual proof of assistance is required
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
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
Legal Duty
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
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
Special Relationahip
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
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
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.
Parties 66(2)
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.
Knowing any person to have been a party to an offence
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
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
Wilful blindness
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
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
Offence must be completed (accessory)
R v Mane
To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence
R v Mane
to be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence
R v Gibbs
R v Gibbs
highlights the act or acts done by the accessory must have helped the other person in some way to evade justice
To evade Justice
R v Gibbs
highlights the act or acts done by the accessory must have helped the other person in some way to evade justice
Actively suppresses evidence
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
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
Possession for receiving
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.
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.
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
Receiving (Property)
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
Knowledge at the time
R v Kennedy
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving
Recklessness
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
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
R v Kennedy
The guilty knowledge that the ting has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving
