Case Law

Question 1

Mulcahy v R
(Conspiracy)

Answer 1

A conspiracy is not merely the intention of two or more, but the agreement to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.

Question 2

R v Donnelly
(No offence receiving)

Answer 2

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 3

R v Sanders
(conspiracy ends)

Answer 3

A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement, it continues until it is completed or abandoned.

Question 4

Churchill v Walton
(Unlawful act)

Answer 4

The conspirators need not know the act was an offence, but they must know the act is unlawful

Question 5

R v White
(Unknown identities)

Answer 5

Where you can prove a suspect conspired with a party whose identity is unknown, that suspect can be convicted of conspiracy even if the identity of the parties is never established or remains unknown.

Question 6

Simester and Brookbanks
(Knowledge)

Answer 6

Knowing means correctly believing. The belief must be correct, where the belief is wrong a person cannot know something.

Question 7

R v Crooks
(Belief/knowledge party to)

Answer 7

Actual knowledge or belief, having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence.

Question 8

R v Briggs
(Wilful blindness)

Answer 8

Knowledge may be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate failure to make enquiries that would confirm the suspected truth

Question 9

R v Mane
(Offence complete)

Answer 9

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

Question 10

R v Gibbs
(Evade justice)

Answer 10

Acts done by accessory must have helped other person evade justice

Question 11

R v Levy
(Evidence)

Answer 11

Deliberate act in relation to the evidence against the offender for the purpose of assisting the offender evade justice.

Question 12

R v Cox
(Possession)

Answer 12

Possession involves two elements

Physical- actual/potential physical custody or control

Mental - knowledge and intention
Knowledge substance in his possession
Intention to exercise possession

Question 13

Cullen v R
(Elements of possession for receiving)

Answer 13

There are 4 elements of possession for receiving :
1. Awareness the item is where it is
2. Awareness the item has been stolen
3. Actual or potential control over the item
4. An intention to exercise control over the item

Question 14

R v Lucinsky
(Property must be stolen)

Answer 14

The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds.

Question 15

Cameron v R
(Recklessness)

Answer 15

Recklessness is established if:
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 having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

Question 16

R v Collister
(Circumstantial evidence)

Answer 16

Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include:

The offenders actions and words before, during and after the event

The surrounding circumstances

The nature of the act itself

Question 17

R v Ring
(No item in pocket)

Answer 17

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 18

R v Harpur
(Conduct)

Answer 18

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 19

R v Renata
(Identity of offenders)

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

R v Russell
(Secondary offender, not acting)

Answer 20

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 his approval to his wife’s act he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender.

Question 21

R v Betts and Ridley
(Violence)

Answer 21

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 22

R v Kennedy
(knowledge property is stolen)

Answer 22

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