CASE LAW Flashcards
Amount of drugs must be more than minute and of a usable quantity
R V EMERALI
Prosecutions must show proof of Age
R V FORREST AND FORREST
Crown does not need establish Knowledge of drugs. Up to defendant to prove they were innocence, however , evidence to support knowledge is encouraged.
R V STRAWBRIDGE
Creation of controlled drug by some process of changing it from its original state to a controlled drug
R V RUA
the offer of a controlled drug must understood to be genuine offer.
R V BROWN
Must show Person offering a controlled drug had an Intimation or physical evidence to prove their possession for supply to
R V DURING
Physical (Actus Rea) and Mental element (Mens Rea) must be proven to show possession
R V COX
Import is to introduce or bring in from foreign country
SAXTON V POLICE
Importing includes time from when it reaches country until it reaches immediate destination or cease to be in control of authorities.
R V HANCOCK
Intent can be shown through Circumstantial evidence/Actions/words/nature of Act
R V COLLISTER
Nature of Blow can prove intent
R V TAISALIKA
Recklessness is Established if defendant recognised real possibility that their actions would bring about proscribed result and proscribed circumstances existed and having regard to that risk, those actions were unreasonable.
CAMERON V R
Recklessness Requires Defendant know or have conscious appreciation of risk and makes deliberate decision to run the risk.
R V TIPPLE
Any hurt or injury that interferes with health or comfort of victim. More than trifling or transitory
R V DONNAVAN
Grievous means no more and no less than serious.
DPP V SMITH
A wound is Breaking of skin evidenced by flow of blood. May be internal or external
R V WATERS
Disfigurement need not be permanent but can be temporary damage
R V RAPANA AND MURRAY
to show aggravation you must show Intention to commit imprisonable offence
Intention to cause specified harm or foresaw their actions were likely to cause harm
R V TIHI
Aggravated: Must be proof of the attempt or commission of the crime by the person committing the assault.
R V WATI
To chage Aggravated Wounding Must prove imprisonable offence was committed.
R V STURM
To Stupefy is to Effect mind and nervous system which seriously interferes with their mental/physical ability
R V STURM
To prove violent means the victim must be Incapable of resistance includes powerlessness of will as well as physical incapacity
R V CROSSAN
Knowledge or belief that person they were assisting was party to offence, mere suspicion is not enough
R V CROOKS
Knowledge can be inferred from wilful blindness. The accused’s intentional ignorance could be seen as deliberately choosing not to enquire about the truth or knowing the truth but deliberately not asking questions.
R V BRIGGS
Conspiracy is the Intention of 2 or more people and the agreement between 2 or more people
MULCAHY V R
Can convict someone of Conspiracy even if 2nd person unknown.
R V WHITE
Conspiracy: In relation to jurisdiction: A Person need not be in NZ or can live in NZ with Intention to commit offence outside of NZ if an offence within NZ Law
R V SANDERS
Attempts: Even if not possible to commit crime, if the offender had the intent, he could still be charge for attempts, E.g tries to pick pocket but finds nothing in pocket.
R V RING
Proximity for Attempts
Independent acts when viewed in isolation can be seen as preparatory however when viewed collectively, can be seen as attempts
R V HARPUR
If no violence contemplated, however one party uses it, the other cannot be held accountable.
R V BRETTS AND RIDLEY
Where Principal offender isn’t be identified we must prove each individual was either the principal or party too.
R V RENATA
Party to:
Principle offender doesn’t have to know Secondary offender was assisting him
LARKIN V POLICE
Accessory after the fact:
Offence must be completed at the time
R V MANE
Pecuniary Advantage
Anything that enhances financial position. The enhancement that constitutes advantage.
R V HAYES
Valuable Concideration:
Anything capable of being valuable consideration whether it monetary or value or not. Money for money’s worth.
R V HAYES
An unsuccessful use of a document is as much as a successful use. Whether you have the intended outcome or not, you have still “USED” the card. Relates to use not ultimate obtaining. To consider use- Was it sufficiently proximate?
R V HAYES
Service:
Activity with element of financial or economical value
R V CARA
Document
A thing which provides evidence, information or serves as a record.
R V MISIC
Loss:
Loss by victim must have been induced upon deception. It must be a direct loss. Indirect loss such as loss of anticipated future profits does not count. Loss must be more than trivial.
MORLEY V R
Duty to Disclose:
Deliberate failure to disclose certain material by a person who has a duty to disclose information will come with the definition of deception
R V LOVE
Takes:
Physically removed from once place to another.
Deprivation of liberty coupled with carrying them away from place they want to be
R V WELLARD
Detains:
Imposing constraint or restraint on person detained. Actively keeping/confining them.
R V PRYCE
Takes and detains are Separate and distinct offences. Takes is complete when you take them away from the location. Detains is when you keep them at the location. Once taken away, detaining at a new location, constitutes as a new offence
R V CROSSAN
Consent must be free, voluntary and fully informed and given by a person with rational judgement. Consent can be conveyed in words or conduct and withdrawn at any times
R V COX
Offence is committed at the time of taking away/detaining as long as intent is established before or during.
R V MOHI
Robbery is complete the instant property is taken even if possession is only momentary
R V LAPIER
Immediate return of goods does not purge offence of robbery or theft. Subject is always the intent which existed at the time of taking
R V PEAT
Actions of defendant forcibly interfere with victims’ personal freedom. Therefore Violence or threats must be more that minimal
PENEHA V POLICE
Robbery:
Accompany - must be connection and link between violence and theft. (Proximity)
R V MAIHI
Manifestation of intention to inflict violence can be through words or actions. Surrounding circumstances will show whether threats victim fears were sufficient e.g., age appearance, physique demeanour etc
R V BROUGHTON
Threat can be continuing effect where victim may hand over item as a result of previous threats still operating in victims mind.
R V MITCHELL
Agg Robbery
Must establish 2 people present at time.
R V JOYCE
Agg Robbery
Both people committing offence must have same intent
R V GALEY
Robbery : Need to prove defendant had no claim of right to property
R V SKIVINGTON
Gentalia compromises of the reproductive organs. Interior and exterior. They include the vulva and labia. Bith internal and external at the opening of the vagina
R v Koroheke
Consent must be free voluntary full and informed. Given freely and voluntarily by person in a position to form rational judgement
R v cox
Under the objective test the crown must prove that no reasonable person in the defendants shoes would have believed the complainant was consenting
R V Gutuama
Indecency means conduct that right thinking people would concider an affont to the sexual modesty of the complainant
R v Court
Indecency mist be judged in light of the time place and circumstance. It must be something more than triffling and sufficient to warrant the sanctions of the law
R v Dunn
The definition of indecent assault is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency
R v Leeson
If a person charged with indecent assault is able ro establish that they honestly believed that the complainant was consenting they are entitled to be aquitted even though his grounds to belief were unreasonable
R v Norris
