Case Law Flashcards
What case law applies to Impoting and Exporting controlled drugs?
(There are two to learn)
Saxton v Police (cause the process)
- To import includes, to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country.
R v Hancox (where it begins and happily-ends)
- …from the time the goods enter NZ until thereach their immediate destination. Ie when they cease to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become abailable to the sonsignie or addressee.
What does Saxton v Police apply to?
Causing a controlled drug to be introduced from abroad or to be brought in from a foreign country
What case law would you use where a defendant has caused a controlled drug to be introduced from abroad or caused them to be brought in from a foreign country?
Saxton v Police
What case law would apply when a defendant is accused of knowingly facilitating the importation process, but it was a question whether their involvement fell within the definded limits of the importation process?
R v Hancox
the bringing of goods into the country or causing them to be brought in does not cease when the aircraft or vessel enters NZ teritorial limits.
The elements of importation exist from the time the goods enter NZ 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.
When would R v Hancox apply?
R v Hancox relates to the points where the process of importation begin and end.
importation does not end when the goods enter NZ teritorial limits but continues until the goods reach their immediate destination. Where they have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and are available to the consignee or addressee.
What case law would apply to the issue of Guilty Knowledge?
When the accussed defense is that they innocently possessed a controlled drug without knowing.
R v Strawbridge
it is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accuesed. In the absences of evidence to the contrary knowledge 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 aquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.
What are the two parts to R v Strawbridge?
- it is not necessary that the Crown prove guilty knowledge. In the absence of evidence guilty knowledge will be presumed.
- If the accused provides evicence of innocently possessing the controlled drug without knowing that it was such, then they are entitled to be aquitted.
What case law would apply where it is an issue whether or not there is a useable quantity of the drug?
Police v Emirali
the serious offence of possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance
When would you refer to Police v Emirali?
When the question of a useable amount is at issue.
What case law relates to Section 6(1)(b)
Produces or manufactures a controlled drug.
R v Rua (R U A manufacturer?)
The words “produce’ or “manufacture” cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.
When the issue of whether a drug has been created through a process, which case law would you refer to?
R v Rua
The words “produce” and “manufacture” cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.
R v Magnnis
[Supply involves] more than the transfer of physical control
..[it includes] enabling the recipient
to apply the thing
…to the purposes for which he desires…
What case law applies to Offer to Supply and what does it say?
R v Brown
The defendant is guilty in the following instances:
- offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
- offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
- offer to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
- offers to supply a drug deceitfully, know that he will not supply that drug
“…the making of such an intimation, with the intention that it should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence.”
What case law applies to Possession?
R v Cox
Possession involves two elements:
The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical control or custody.
The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowing in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession and an intention to exerciser possession.
What case law would you refer to when seeking a warrant despite not every conceivable alternative investigative technique having been exhausted?
R v McGinty
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 but without success, was sufficient. A judge was not required to refuse a warrant because the Police had not exhausted every conceivable alternative techinque of investigation.
