Case Law Flashcards
Case Law: Imports
Saxton v Police
To import includes to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country.
In Saxton v Police, the defendant posted a parcel containing cannabis resin from London to an address in Dunedin. The parcel was intercepted by Customs, and on his return to New Zealand Saxton was charged with importing a Class B controlled drug. In his defence he argued that although he had exported the drugs from England, he had not imported the drugs into New Zealand, as he did not bring them in himself. The Court of Appeal held that “to import” includes “to bring in” but that the term also has a wider definition.
Case Law: The importing process
R v Hancox
In R v Hancox, two parcels containing MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets were mailed from overseas to a post office box in Auckland. The defendant was arrested when she went to uplift one of the parcels, claiming that she had simply been asked to clear the box and had intended to deliver the parcel to the addressee.
The Court of Appeal held that delivery into the post office box was the final step in the transit process and that the importation had ended; the woman’s involvement after that point could therefore not have aided or assisted in the importation.
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”.
Hancox = can only be convicted during the importing process, once that ends you are no longer a party to importing however may be liable for possession for supply.
Case Law: Guilty Knowledge
R v Strawbridge
It is 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.
Case law: Useable quantity
Police v Emirali
The serious offence of possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.
In Police v Emirali, the defendant was charged following a search warrant at his address in which minute quantities of cannabis were found. The Court of Appeal held that the purpose of the statute is not to prohibit the existence of controlled drugs per se, but to prevent their illicit use, and it was therefore necessary for the drugs found to be of a useable quantity.
The Court did however acknowledge that whether or not the quantity of a drug is useable depends on more than just its size or weight; the nature of the drug and the condition in which it is found are relevant, as is the question of whether it might reasonably be used to supplement any other small samples found to create a larger useable quantity as a whole.
Traces of a controlled drug may also provide circumstantial evidence of previous possession of larger quantities of the drug.
While it is necessary that the amount of the controlled drug is of a useable quantity, under section 29A it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that fact unless the defendant puts the matter in issue.
Case Law: Producing/Manufacturing
R v Rua
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.
Case Law: Supply
R v Maginnis
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”
In R v Maginnis, the defendant was charged with “possession of cannabis resin with intent to supply it to another” after a package containing 227 grams of the drug was found in his car. He claimed the package had been left there by a friend, and that he expected his friend would at some stage come and collect the drugs from him.
The House of Lords held that the return of the drugs to the friend would have restored the friend’s ability to use the drugs for his own purposes, and the defendant therefore had the necessary intent for supply.
Case Law: Offering to Supply or Administer
R v During
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.
Case Law: Offering to Supply or Administer (When the Defendant is guilty)
R v Brown
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.
Also
The making of such an intimation, with the intention that it should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence”.
Case Law: Proof of Age
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
Case Law: Possession
R v Cox
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.
Case Law: Intent
R v Collister
Intent can be inferred by actions and words, said and made, before, during or after the event, the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the act itself.
Case Law: Alternative Investigation Techniques
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 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.
Case Law: CHIS
R v McGinty
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.
