Case Law

Question 1

Saxton V Police (Importation)

Answer 1

Saxton v Police [1981] 2 NZLR 186 (CA)

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

Question 2

R v Hancox (Importation)

Answer 2

R v Hancox [1989] 3 NZLR 60 (CA)

“… the bringing of goods into the country or causing them to be brought into the country does not cease as the aircraft or vessel enters New Zealand’s territorial limits.

Importing into New Zealand for the purposes of s 6(1)(a) is a process. The element of importing exists from the time the goods enter New Zealand until they reach their immediate destination … [ie] when they have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become available to the consignee or addressee”.

Question 3

R v Strawbridge (Guilty Knowledge)

Answer 3

R v Strawbridge [1970] NZLR 909

Not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be 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 4

Police v Emirali (Useable amount)

Answer 4

Police v Emirali [1976] 2 NZLR 476

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

Question 5

R v Rua (Produce and Manufacture)

Answer 5

R v Rua [2008] NZCA 38

The words “produce” or “manufacture” in s 6(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 6

R v Maginnis (Supply)

Answer 6

R v Maginnis [1987] 1 All ER 907

“[Supply involves] more than the mere transfer of physical control … [it includes] enabling the recipient to apply the thing … to purposes for which he desires …”

Question 7

R v During (Offer to supply or administer)

Answer 7

R v During [1973] 1 NZLR 366 (CA)

“[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 the statute”.

Question 8

R v Brown (Offer to supply or administer) - 4 Points

Answer 8

R v Brown [1978] 2 NZLR 174 (CA)

The defendant is guilty in the following instances: (1) offers to supply a drug that he has on hand (2) offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date (3) offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply (4) offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug

Question 9

R v Brown (Offer to supply or administer)

Answer 9

R v Brown [1978] 2 NZLR 174 (CA)

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

Question 10

R v Forrest and Forrest (Proof of age)

Answer 10

R v Forrest and Forrest [1970] NZLR 545 (CA)

“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age”.

Question 11

R v Cox (Possession)

Answer 11

R v Cox [1990] 2 NZLR 275

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 12

R v Collister (Circumstantial evidence)

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

R v McGinty

Answer 13

The evidence in the present case of continued heroin dealing, in respect of which the orthodox techniques such as searching premises and following vehicles had
been tried without success, was sufficient. A Judge was not required to refuse a warrant because the Police had not exhausted every conceivable alternative
technique of investigation.

Question 14

R v McGinty

Answer 14

Disclosure of the identity of alleged informants was not required under the Act, and
the trial Judge was correct in deleting from the application certain parts which
would have been likely to lead to the identification of informants. However, the trial
Judge was entitled to insist on disclosure if he saw fit.