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
  Intent can be inferred by his actions was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions.
  (Acting with criminal intent)

Question 5

R v Harpur

Answer 5

• Attempts - Sufficiently proximate -
  Def’s conduct to be considered in its entirety and in viewed cumulatively to get to attempt to commit

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. Therefore, attempts cultivation.
  (Acting with criminal intent but physically impossible to commit)

Question 7

Police v Jay

Answer 7

• Attempts
  Man bought hedge clippings, believing they were Cannabis. (Acting with criminal intent but physically impossible in commit)

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 the 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

Answer 10

Where 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 way of 66(1)

Question 11

Larkins v Police

Answer 11

While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance. (Parties)

Question 12

Ashton v Police

Answer 12

Legal duty.
Example of a secondary party owing a legal duty to a third person is a person teaching another person to drive. Legal duty to take reasonable precautions, deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.

Question 13

R v Russell

Answer 13

Special relationship
The accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his children, but by his deliberate abstention from doing so, and by giving the encouragement and authority of his presence and approval to his wife’s act he became an aider and abetter, making him a secondary offender.

Question 14

R v Betts & Ridley

Answer 14

An offence where no violence is contemplated, and the principal offender in carrying out the common intention uses violence, the secondary offender taking no physical part would not be liable for the violence.

Question 15

R v Crooks

Answer 15

(Accessory)
Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.

Question 16

R v Briggs

Answer 16

Wilful blindness
- Knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate lack from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.

(Can be for Receiving and Accessory charge)

Question 17

R v Mane

Answer 17

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

Question 18

R v Gibbs

Answer 18

To evade justice.
The act or acts done by the accessory must have helped the other person in some way to evade justice.

Question 19

R v Levy

Answer 19

Actively suppresses evidence.
Does a deliberate act in relation to the evidence against the offender, for the purpose of assisting that person to evade justice.

Question 20

R v Lucinsky

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Cameron v R

Answer 21

Reckless
Is established if, defendant recognized that there was a real possibility that, his/her actions would bring about the proscribed result, and/or, that the proscribed result existed, and, having regard to that risk, actions were unreasonable.

Question 22

R v Cox

Answer 22

Possession involves two elements - Physical element (Actual or potential possession) and mental element (combination of knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the sence of awareness that the item was in his possession and intention to exercise possession)

Question 23

Cullen v R

Answer 23

There are four elements of possession for receiving:
- awareness the item is where it is,
- awareness the item has been stolen,
- actual or potential control of the item, and,
- an intention to excersise that control over the item.

Question 24

R v Collister

Answer 24

• 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 25

R v Sanders (NZ)

Answer 25

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

Question 26

R v Kennedy

Answer 26

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

Question 27

R v Mane #2

Answer 27

Assessory is entitled to proof that alleged offence was committed, and to challenge that proof.

Question 28

R v Goodyear-Smith

Answer 28

Intent to mislead - Perjury
Court held to be guilty of perjury, witness must make a wilfully (intentional) false statement in respect of the material of importance.

Question 29

Taylor v Manu

Answer 29

Perjury/pervert course of justice
Court held must be something corroborating the allegation of offence. (121 Evidence Act)