Case law Flashcards
_R v Pene _
_R v Pene _
A party must intentionally help or encourage - it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.
Parties to
R v Pene
R v Renata
Larkins v Police
Ashton v Police
R v Russell
R v Betts and Ridley
**Receiving **
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
R v Kennedy
R v Lucinsky
R v Harney
R v Donnelly
Conspiracy
_Mulcahy v R
R v Sanders
R v Mohan
R v Waaka
R v White _
Attempts
R v Ring
R v Harpur
Higgins v Police
Police v Jay
R v Donnelly
Accessory after the fact
R v Crooks
R v Briggs
R v Mane
Parties to
R v Pene
R v Renata
Larkins v Police
Ashton v Police
R v Russell
R v Betts and Ridley
**Receiving **
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
R v Kennedy - innocent agents - intent to possess
R v Lucinsky - item recieved must be actually stolen, not items exchanged for the originals eg $
R v Harney - recklessness defined
R v Donnelly - Bus ticket
Conspiracy
_Mulcahy v R
R v Sanders
R v Mohan
R v Waaka
R v White _
Attempts
R v Ring - inferring intent from act / physically imp.
R v Harpur - Physically impossible / prep=>attempt
Higgins v Police - physically impossible - plants
Police v Jay - physically impossible - clippings
R v Donnelly - Train ticket - legally impossible
Accessory after the fact
R v Crooks - req. knowledge regarding offending
R v Briggs - wilful blindness
R v Mane - Offence must be complete
_R v Renata _
R v Renata
Three offenders beat the victim to death in the car park of a tavern. The prosecution was unable to establish which blow was the fatal one or which of the three offenders administered it. 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).
_Larkins v Police _
_Larkins v Police _
While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance. The mere commission of an act intended to have that effect is insufficient. Absence of knowledge by the principal that he is being assisted removes a common foundation for a finding of actual assistance, namely that the principal was able to proceed with his enterprise with the additional confidence gained because his accomplice was on the lookout for unwanted intervention.
_Ashton v Police _
_Ashton v Police _
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.
_R v Russell _
_R v Russell _
The accused was charged with the murder of his wife and two sons. Following an argument between the accused and his wife, the wife, in the presence of the accused, allegedly jumped into a swimming pool with both children, drowning them all. The accused failed to render assistance to his wife or their children. 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 aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender.
_R v Betts and Ridley _
_R v Betts and Ridley _
An offence 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 used.
_R v Ring _
_R v Ring _
In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown 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 also satisfied.
_R v Harpur _
_R v Harpur _
[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 considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.”
_Higgins v Police _
_Higgins v Police _
Where plants being cultivated as cannabis are not in fact cannabis it is physically, not legally, impossible to cultivate such prohibited plants. Accordingly, it is possible to commit the offence of attempting to cultivate cannabis.
_Police v Jay _
_Police v Jay _
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis
_R v Donnelly _
_R v Donnelly _
Where 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 previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Ideally, a possessor of a thing has complete physical control over it;
he has knowledge of its existence, its situation and its qualities;
he has received it from a person who intends to confer possession of it, and
he has himself the intention to possess it exclusively of others.
R v Kennedy
_R v Kennedy
T_he prosecution must prove an intent on the part of the receiver to possess the property.
_R v Lucinsky _
_R v Lucinsky _
The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained (or part thereof), and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds.
