Case Law Flashcards
When does a Conspiracy end?
What is the relevant case law?
By completion or abandonment of the crime.
Case Law - SANDERS
[Conspiracy ends upon completion of the offense or its abandonment]
“A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by COMPLETION of its performance or ABANDONMENT or in any other manner in which agreements are discharged.”
What is the conspiracy related case law for what needs to be proved (or what constitutes Conspiracy) ?
Mulcahy
[Conspiracy consists of Intention and Agreement]
“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 it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, THE VERY PLOT IS AN ACT IN ITSELF …”
Can a suspect be charged with conspiracy if the other parties are unknown?
What is the case law for this?
Yes
WHITE:
[If there is proof of conspiracy, one party can be convicted even if the others are unknown]
WHERE YOU CAN PROVE THAT A SUSPECT CONSPIRED with other parties (one or more people) whose identities are unknown, THAT SUSPECT CAN STILL BE CONVICTED EVEN IF THE IDENTITY OF THE OTHER PARTIES IS NEVER ESTABLISHED and remains unknown.
Can intent be inferred from the circumstances?
Besides Collister, What other case law speaks about this?
Yes, it can be inferred.
Ring -
[Intent to steal was in his mind and demonstrated by his actions]
R v Ring:
In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim.
Unbeknownst to the offender the pocket was empty.
Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were satisfied.
What case law deals with acts sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt?
Harpur
[Conduct viewed cumulatevely]
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops.
The defendant’s conduct may be viewed in its entirety.
Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant though not determinative.
What three case law examples deal with criminal acts where the crime failed due to FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY?
Ring:
A thief putting his hand into an empty pocket.
Higgins:
Cultivating plants believing them to be cannabis when actually they are something else.
Jay:
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.
What case law can be used as an example of committing an act that is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
Donnelly:
When stolen property has been returned to the owner, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it.
Can someone be a PARTY to an offence by mere recklessness to whether there was assistance or encouragement?
What case law deals with this point?
No. There must be intent rather than just recklessness.
R v Pene
[A party must intentionally help or encourage]
A PARTY MUST INTENTIONALLY HELP or ENCOURAGE - it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.
What can be done in cases where the PRINCIPAL offender of the PARTY can’t be distinguished? (Eg which one delivered the fatal blow?)
What case law provides guidance on this?
R v Renata
[It is sufficient to prove the accused was either the principal or the party]
The court held that where the 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 of the ways contemplated by s66(1).
What is the case law around PROOF of ASSISTANCE for a party offence?
Larkins v Police
[Need not prove the principal knew they were assisted, just that they were assisted]
While it UNNECESSARY THAT THE PRINCIPAL SHOULD BE AWARE that he is being assisted, THERE MUST BE PROOF OF ACTUAL ASSISTANCE.
What is the case law for LEGAL DUTY?
Ashton
[A driving instructor has a legal duty]
An example of a secondary party OWING A LEGAL DUTY TO A THIRD PERSON OR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS A PERSON TEACHING ANOTHER PERSON TO DRIVE. That person is, in New Zealand, under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under s156 of the Crimes Act 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.
What is the case law for SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP?
Russell
[Russell was morally bound to act, his inaction made him an aid and abettor]
The Court held that the accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his children, but by his deliberate abstention from so doing, and BY GIVING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND AUTHORITY OF HIS PRESENCE AND APPROVAL TO HIS WIFE’S ACT HE BECAME AN AID AND ABETTOR AND THUS A SECONDARY OFFENDER.
What was found in the BETTS and RIDLEY case?
R v Betts and Ridley:
[A secondary is not liable to un-contemplated violence]
An offense where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence
Quote R v Crooks
(Knowing he’s a crook)
R v Crooks
[Knowing in a sense of having no real doubt]
Knowing 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 IS INSUFFICIENT.
R v BRIGGS
How does this case law relate to KNOWLEDGE?
R v Briggs
…Knowledge may be inferred from WILLFUL BLINDNESS…or lack of inquiry.
