Case Law

Question 1

Saxton V Police

Answer 1

To import includes to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country

Question 2

R V Hancox

Answer 2

Bringing of goods into the country does not cease when a vessel enters the country, importing exists until they reach their immediate destination.

Question 3

R v Strawbridge:

Answer 3

It is not necessary that the crown establish guilty knowledge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it will be presumed unless there is evidence the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the act was innocent.

Question 4

R v RUA

Answer 4

Produce and Manufacture broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form or process which changes the original substance into a controlled drug.

Question 5

R V MAGINNIS

Answer 5

Supply involves more than the mere transfer of physical control includes enabling the recipient to use the drug for their own purpose.

Question 6

R v Donald

Answer 6

Caught chopping up heroin into 35 lots
Held that distributing includes distribution of jointly owned property between co owners

Question 7

R V KNOX

Answer 7

Defendant received a package of lsd and said he was holding it for the sender when they arrived in nz.

A person who is in possession of a drug for safekeeping has necessary intent for supply if intent is to return the drug to that person who deposited it with him.

Giving can occur without active transfer, can be passive

Question 8

R v Wildbore

Answer 8

Defendant kept lsd in a shed left key in pre arranged location for friend to help herself when wanted to.

High court held that a passive custodian who relinquishes custody has necessary intent for supply

It is unnecessary that the accused perform some positive act of transmission.

A transfer which meets the requirements of another person is sufficient.

Question 9

R V DURING

Answer 9

An offer is the intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply controlled drugs

Question 10

R V BROWN (OFFER)

Answer 10

The making of an offer with the intent that it be understood as genuine is an offence.
May be conveyed in any manner, words writing gestures

Question 11

R v BROWN (DIFF TYPES)

Answer 11

Offer to supply a drug on hand
Offer to supply a drug he will procure in the future
Mistakenly offer to supply a drug he will believe he will supply
Offer to supply a drug deceitfully knowing he will not supply

Question 12

R v Marr and WIlkinson in relation to offers

Answer 12

Offer to supply is to be given its ordinary meaning
There may be more than one person guilty of offering to supply in one transaction
An intermediary may be guilty of offering to supply his own principal.
Offer to supply in S6 & 7 MODA has a wide meaning and includes an offer to arrange someone else to hand over a drug to the person supplied.

Question 13

Lockyer v Gibb

Answer 13

Person cannot be in possession of something they do not realize is in their possession.

Question 14

R v Cruse

Answer 14

Circumstantial evidence can prove the identity of a substance if no substance is recovered.

Question 15

Julian V Green

Answer 15

Physical custody raises an inference of concurrent knowledge of the contents. The presumption is rebuttable unless raised.

Question 16

Police v Rowles

Answer 16

discusses where someone can possess without being aware. A genuine lack of awareness would exclude knowing possession and thereby intent.

Question 17

R v Cox (POSSESSION)

Answer 17

Possession involves two elements, physical possession means actual or potential custody or control. And a mental element , knowledge that the item is in their possession and an intention to possess it.

Question 18

R v collister

Answer 18

Intent can be inferred through
The nature of the act itself
Surrounding circumstance
Words said before during after the act

Question 19

R v HOOPER

Answer 19

Charge should be specific as the evidence on which it is based.
So where there is evidence of a sale a charge of sale should be alleged rather than supply

Question 20

R v Greenfield

Answer 20

Reinforced that the offence of conspiracy turns on the agreement and does not necessitate any further involvement in the commission of the crime. The conspiracy is complete once the agreement has been made.

Question 21

Moore V Police

Answer 21

It must be proved that the defendant intended the items to be used in the future
Not necessary that defendant intends to use himself. Sufficient for another to use
Necessary to prove the intent to be used in specified offence, not necessary to prove committed or attempted.

Question 22

Ulrich V Police

Answer 22

Words can constitute obstruction under MODA

Question 23

R V MCGINTY (sdw)

Answer 23

Held that a judge is not required to refuse an interception warrant merely because police have not exhausted all alternate investigative techniques.

Question 24

R v Mcginty (chis)

Answer 24

Disclosure of ID of informants not required and the judge is correct in deleting parts which would identify. Trial judge is entitled to insist on disclosure if he sees fit.

Question 25

R v Stack

Answer 25

Where a party to the communication knows an interception is taking place, this is no longer private communication and therefore not covered by terms of interception warrant.

Question 26

Police v Emerali:

Answer 26

Possession does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the drug.