Case Law Flashcards
Saxton V Police
To import includes to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country
R V Hancox
Bringing of goods into the country does not cease when a vessel enters the country, importing exists until they reach their immediate destination.
R v Strawbridge:
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.
R v RUA
Produce and Manufacture broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form or process which changes the original substance into a controlled drug.
R V MAGINNIS
Supply involves more than the mere transfer of physical control includes enabling the recipient to use the drug for their own purpose.
R v Donald
Caught chopping up heroin into 35 lots
Held that distributing includes distribution of jointly owned property between co owners
R V KNOX
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
R v Wildbore
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.
R V DURING
An offer is the intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply controlled drugs
R V BROWN (OFFER)
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
R v BROWN (DIFF TYPES)
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
R v Marr and WIlkinson in relation to offers
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.
Lockyer v Gibb
Person cannot be in possession of something they do not realize is in their possession.
R v Cruse
Circumstantial evidence can prove the identity of a substance if no substance is recovered.
Julian V Green
Physical custody raises an inference of concurrent knowledge of the contents. The presumption is rebuttable unless raised.
Police v Rowles
discusses where someone can possess without being aware. A genuine lack of awareness would exclude knowing possession and thereby intent.
R v Cox (POSSESSION)
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.
R v collister
Intent can be inferred through
The nature of the act itself
Surrounding circumstance
Words said before during after the act
R v HOOPER
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
R v Greenfield
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.
Moore V Police
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.
Ulrich V Police
Words can constitute obstruction under MODA
R V MCGINTY (sdw)
Held that a judge is not required to refuse an interception warrant merely because police have not exhausted all alternate investigative techniques.
R v Mcginty (chis)
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.
