Case Law

Question 1

Mulcahy v R

Answer 1

• Conspires
  A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only and is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is in an act in itself.

Question 2

R v Sanders

Answer 2

• Conspires
  A conspiracy doesn’t end with the making of the agreement, it continues until completion of its performance, abandonment, or any other manner by which agreements are discharged.

Question 3

R v White

Answer 3

• Conspires
  When you can prove suspect conspired with other parties (one or more) whose ID is unknown, suspect can still be convicted even if ID is never established.

Question 4

R v Ring

Answer 4

• Attempts
  Hand in pocket to steal a ring, unbeknown ring wasn’t there. Could be convicted of attempted theft.
  Intent to steal (whatever he found) was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions.
  (Acting with criminal intent)

Question 5

R v Harpur

Answer 5

• Attempts
  Def’s conduct be considered in its entirety. Consider how much to be done, is always relevant, though not determinative.

Question 6

Higgins v Police

Answer 6

• Attempts
  Cultivate cannabis plants that aren’t cannabis, it is physically impossible, not legally impossible to cultivate such plants. It is possible to commit attempting to cultivate cannabis.
  (Acting with criminal intent)

Question 7

Police v Jay

Answer 7

• Attempts
  Man bought hedge clippings, believing they were Cannabis. (Acting with criminal intent)

Question 8

R v Donnelly

Answer 8

• Legally impossible Act
  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 tye property had been stolen or dishonesty obtained.

Question 9

R v Pene

Answer 9

• Parties
  A party must intentionally help or encourage.
  Insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.

Question 10

R v Renata

Question 11

Larkins v Police

Question 12

Ashton v Police

Question 13

R v Russell

Question 14

R v Betts & Ridley

Question 15

R v Crooks

Question 16

R v Briggs

Question 17

R v Mane

Question 18

R v Gibbs

Question 19

R v Levy

Question 20

R v Lucinsky

Question 21

Cameron v R

Question 22

R v Donnelly

Question 23

R v Cox

Question 24

Cullen v R

Question 25

R v Collister

Answer 25

• Intent
  Circumstantial evidence from which Def’s intent can be inferred can include:
  Def’s actions/words before, during or after the act.
  Circumstantial evidence.
  Nature of the act itself.

Question 26

R v Sanders (NZ)

Answer 26

Deemed sufficient if one act or omission forming part of the offence occurs in NZ