Case Law

Question 1

Sexual violation by rape

Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

Answer 1

R v KOROHEKE (genitalia)
Includes the vulva and labia, both interior and exterior, at the opening of the vagina.

R v COX (consent)
Consent must be full, voluntary free and informed, fully and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.

R v GUTUAMA (reasonable grounds)
Under the objective test the crown must prove that “no responsible person” in the defendant’s shoes could have thought that the complainant was consenting.

Question 2

Assault with intent to commit sexual violation

Answer 2

R v MOHAN (intent)
Intent involves, a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused power, the commission of the offence.

R v WAAKA (intent)
A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient; there must be a firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.

Question 3

Sexual conduct with dependant family member

Sexual conduct with child under 12

Sexual conduct with a young person under 16

Answer 3

R v KOROHEKE (genitalia)
Includes the vulva and labia, both interior and exterior, at the opening of the vagina.

R v FORREST AND FORREST (victim’s age)
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
Birth certificate and evidence from a person who can identify the complainant.

Question 4

Sexual conduct (indecent act) with child under 12

Sexual conduct (indecent act) with a young person under 16

Answer 4

R v COURT (indecent act)
Indecency means “conduct that right-thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of [the complainant].”

R v FORREST AND FORREST (victim’s age)
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
Birth certificate and evidence from a person who can identify the complainant.

Question 5

Indecent Assault

Answer 5

R v LEESON (indecent assault)

The definition of “indecent assault” … is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency…

Question 6

Abduction

Kidnapping

Answer 6

R v CHARTRAND (unlawfully)
Unlawfully means “without lawful justification, authority or excuse”.

R v CROSSAN (takes away v detains)
Taking away and detaining are “separate and distinct offences. The first consists of taking [the victim] away; the second of detaining them.

R v WELLARD (takes away)
Deprivation of liberty coupled with carrying the victim away from where they want to be.

R v PRYCE (detains)
To keep in confinement or custody.

R v COX (consent)
Consent must be full, voluntary, free and informed… Freely and voluntary given by a person who is in the position to form a rational judgement.

PAO ON v LAU YIU LONG (duress)
Duress, whatever form it takes, is a coercion of the will so as vitiate (overrule) consent.

R v MOHAN (intent)
Intent involves a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused power, the commission of the offence.

R v WAAKA (intent)
A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient, there must be a firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.

R v MOHI (intent)
Offence is complete at time of taking away, so long as there is at the moment the necessary intent.

Question 7

Robbery

Aggravated robbery - weapon

Answer 7

R v SKIVINGTON (claim of right)
Any defence for a charge of theft will also be a defence to a charge of robbery. Therefore the defence of claim of right is a defence to robbery.

R v LAPIER (taking)
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

R v COX (possession)
Possession involves two elements. The first, often called the physical
element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, often
described as the mental element is a combination of knowledge and
intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the
substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession.

R v MAIHI (accompanied by violence)
Must be a nexus between the act of stealing and a threat of violence, does not require that they be contemporaneous.

PENEHA v POLICE (violence)
It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible, powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.

R v BROUGHTON (threat of violence)
A threat of violence is “the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.”

Question 8

Aggravated robbery - causes GBH

Answer 8

Robbery case law, and:

DPP V SMITH (Grievous Bodily Harm)
Bodily harm needs no explanation, grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

Question 9

Aggravated robbery - together with

Answer 9

Robbery case law, and:

R v JOYCE (together with)
Two persons were physically present at the time of the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.

R v GALEY (together with)
Two persons having a common intention to use their combined force, either in any event, or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.

Question 10

Assault with intent to rob - causes GBH

Answer 10

R v MOHAN (intent)
Intent involves a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused power, the commission of the offence.

R v WAAKA (intent)
A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient, there must be a firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.

DPP v SMITH (Grievous Bodily Harm)
Bodily harm needs no explanation, grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

Question 11

Assault with intent to rob - together with

Answer 11

R v MOHAN (intent)
Intent involves a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused power, the commission of the offence.

R v WAAKA (intent)
A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient, there must be a firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.

R v JOYCE (together with)
Two persons were physically present at the time of the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.

R v GALEY (together with)
Two persons having a common intention to use their combined force, either in any event, or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.

Question 12

Assault with intent to rob

Assault with intent to rob - weapon

Answer 12

R v MOHAN (intent)
Intent involves a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused power, the commission of the offence.

R v WAAKA (intent)
A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient, there must be a firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.

Question 13

Obtain by deception

Answer 13

R v MORLEY (deception - representation)
Representation must relate to a statement of existing fact, rather than a statement of future intention.

R v MORLEY (intent)
An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception.

R v HARNEY (knowledge - recklessness)
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

R v COX (possession)
Possession involves two elements. The first, often called the physical
element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, often
described as the mental element is a combination of knowledge and
intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the
substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession.

R v CARA (service)
Service is limited to financial or economic value, and excludes privileges or benefits.

Hayes v R (pecuniary advantage)
A pecuniary advantage is anything that enhances the accused’s financial position. It is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage.

Question 14

Obtain credit by deception

Answer 14

R v MORLEY (deception - representation)
Representation must relate to a statement of existing fact, rather than a statement of future intention.

R v MORLEY (deception - intention)
An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception.

R v HARNEY (knowledge - recklessness)
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

Question 15

Receiving

Answer 15

R v COX (possession)
Possession involves two elements. The first, often called the physical
element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, often
described as the mental element is a combination of knowledge and
intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the
substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession.

R v LUCINSKY (stolen property)
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.

R v DONNELLY (stolen property)
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.

R v KENNEDY (guilty knowledge)
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.

R v HARNEY (knowledge - recklessness)
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

Question 16

Arson

Answer 16

R v HARNEY (recklessness - 267(1)(a)&(b))
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

R v ARCHER (damages by fire)
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.

SIMESTER & BROOKBANKS (knowing - 267(1)(a))
“Knowing” means “knowing, or correctly believing” … the belief must be a correct one, where the belief is wrong a person cannot know something.

R v WILSON (interest - 267(1)(b))
Tenancy of a property constitutes an interest in it.

R v MORLEY (cause loss - 267(1)(c))
Loss… is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the offence has been diminished or impaired.

Question 17

Conspiracy

Answer 17

MULCAHY v R (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 the 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.

R v WHITE (at least two parties involved)
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.

Question 18

Parties to offence (actually commits the offence)

Answer 18

R v RENATA
where the principle offender cannot be identified, it is sufficient to prove that each individual accused must have been either the principle or a party in one of the ways contemplated by S66(1) CA61

Question 19

Parties to offence (aiding)

Answer 19

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

ASHTON v POLICE (aids)
Legal duty to ensure that vehicle was driven safely. Aston was held party to offence of dangerous driving as he was teaching a person to drive. He omitted to carry out his duty.

Question 20

Parties to offence (abets)

Answer 20

R v RUSSELL (Special Relationship)
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.

Question 21

Parties to - Section 66(2)

Answer 21

Section 66(2) - Where two persons or more form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose.

R V BETTS & RIDLEY
Where two persons embark on an act of violence and one violently assaults a person, the other is also guilty, providing the act was a probably consequence of the common intention.

Timely Withdrawal - A secondary party may escape liability by a timely and effective withdrawal before the commission of the offence.

Question 22

Accessory after the fact

Answer 22

SIMESTER & BROOKBANKS (Principle of criminal law)
“Knowing” means “knowing, or correctly believing” … the belief must be a correct one, where the belief is wrong a person cannot know something.

R v CROOKS (knowledge)
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.

R v BRIGGS (knowledge - wilful blindness)
As with receiving charge under 246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.

R v MANE (enable escape/avoid arrest or conviction)
To be considered an accessory the act done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.

1. A person charged with being an accessory may be charged whether or not the principal offender has been indicted or convicted.
2. If the principal offender has been found not guilty, the person charged as an accessory after the fact must be acquitte.

Question 23

Attempts

Answer 23

POLICE v JAY (intent to commit offence)
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.

R v HARPUR (does or omits and act)
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.

R v DONNELLY (Legal Impossibility)
Attempted receiving – Found not guilty because the property which he intended to receive had been restored to the owner. ‘Legally impossible’.

R v RING (Physical Impossibility)
The pickpocket attempted to steal money although there was none to steal. Physically impossible, but still liable

Higgins v Police (Physically not legally Impossible)
Where the plants being cultivated as cannabis are not in fact cannabis, it is physically, not legally, impossible to cultivate the prohibited plants. Accordingly it is possible to commit an offence of attempting to cultivate cannabis plant.

OFFENCE COMPLETE

1) An attempt is complete even though the accused changes their mind OR
2) Makes a voluntary withdrawal after committing an act that is sufficiently proximate to the intended act.

Question 24

Wounding with Intent to Cause GBH

Answer 24

R v TAISALIKA (intent)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

DPP v SMITH (Grievous Bodily Harm)
Bodily harm needs no explanation, grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

R v WATERS (wound)
A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood
and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which
evidences the separation of tissues may be internal

R v RAPANA & MURRAY (disfigure)
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.

Question 25

Wounding with Intent to Injure

Answer 25

R v TAISALIKA (intent)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

R v DONOVAN (bodily harm)
’Bodily harm’ … includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of [the victim] … it need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be
more than merely transitory and trifling.

R v HARNEY (recklessness)
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could
well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk”.

DPP v SMITH (Grievous Bodily Harm)
Bodily harm needs no explanation, grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

R v WATERS (wound)
A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood
and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which
evidences the separation of tissues may be internal

R v RAPANA & MURRAY (disfigure)
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.

Question 26

Injuring with Intent to Cause GBH

Answer 26

R v TAISALIKA (intent)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

DPP v SMITH (Grievous Bodily Harm)
Bodily harm needs no explanation, grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

R v DONOVAN (bodily harm)
’Bodily harm’ … includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of [the victim] … it need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be
more than merely transitory and trifling.

Question 27

Injuring with Intent to Injure

Answer 27

R v TAISALIKA (intent)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

R v DONOVAN (bodily harm)
’Bodily harm’ … includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of [the victim] … it need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be
more than merely transitory and trifling.

R v HARNEY (recklessness)
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could
well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk”.

Question 28

Aggravated Wounding

Answer 28

R v TAISALIKA (intent)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

R v TIHI (intent)
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) “it must be shown the offender either meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to risk of suffering it”.

R v STURM (Facilitate the commission)
Under section 191(1)(a) “it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed”.

R v WATI (avoid arrest/facilitate flight)
There must be proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

DPP v SMITH (Grievous Bodily Harm)
Bodily harm needs no explanation, grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

R v WATERS (wound)
A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood
and, in its occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which
evidences the separation of tissues may be internal

R v RAPANA & MURRAY (disfigure)
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage”.

R v STURM (stupefy)
To “stupefy” means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person, which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime.

R v CROSSAN (Incapable of resistance)
“Incapable of resistance” includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.

Question 29

Aggravated Injuring

Answer 29

R v TAISALIKA (intent)
The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

R v TIHI (intent)
In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) “it must be shown the offender either meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to risk of suffering it”.

R v STURM (Facilitate the commission)
Under section 191(1)(a) “it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed”.

R v WATI (avoid arrest/facilitate flight)
There must be proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

R v DONOVAN (bodily harm)
’Bodily harm’ … includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of [the victim] … it need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be
more than merely transitory and trifling.

Question 30

Import/Export Controlled Drug

Answer 30

SAXTON v POLICE (import)
To import includes “to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country”.

R v HANCOX (import)
The element of importing exists from the time the goods enter New Zealand until they reach their immediate destination … [ie] when they have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and
have become available to the consignee or addressee”.

Importing is fully complete once the goods are available to the consignee or addressee.

R v STRAWBRIDGE (guilty knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the
accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

POLICE v EMERALI (useable amount)
“…the serious offence of … possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance”.

Question 31

Produce or Manufacture any Controlled Drug

Answer 31

R v RUA (produce or manufacture)
The words “produce” or “manufacture” in s 6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.

R v STRAWBRIDGE (guilty knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the
accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

POLICE v EMERALI (useable amount)
“…the serious offence of … possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance”.

Question 32

Supply/Administer/Offer to Supply or Administer Class A or B Controlled Drug

Answer 32

R v MAGINNIS (supply)
Supply involves “more than the mere transfer of physical control … [it includes] enabling the recipient to apply the thing … to purposes for which he desires …”

R v DONALD (supply)
Includes the distribution of jointly owned property amongst co-owners.

R v KNOX (supply)
Giving also includes giving back.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (administers)
In the context of drug dealing, the appropriate meaning of “administer” is “to direct and cause a … drug to be taken into the system” of another person.

OXFORD DICTIONARY (offers)
Express readiness to do something for or on behalf of someone.

R v DURING (offers)
“[An offer is] an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by the statute”.

R v BROWN (offers)

1. offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
2. offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
3. offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
4. offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug

R v STRAWBRIDGE (guilty knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the
accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

POLICE v EMERALI (useable amount)
“…the serious offence of … possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance”.

Question 33

Supply Class C Controlled Drug to Person under 18 years

Answer 33

R v MAGINNIS (supply)
Supply involves “more than the mere transfer of physical control … [it includes] enabling the recipient to apply the thing … to purposes for which he desires …”

R v DONALD (supply)
Includes the distribution of jointly owned property amongst co-owners.

R v KNOX (supply)
Giving also includes giving back.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (administers)
In the context of drug dealing, the appropriate meaning of “administer” is “to direct and cause a … drug to be taken into the system” of another person.

OXFORD DICTIONARY (offers)
Express readiness to do something for or on behalf of someone.

R v DURING (offers)
“[An offer is] an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by the statute”.

R v BROWN (offers)

1. offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
2. offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
3. offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
4. offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug

R v STRAWBRIDGE (guilty knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the
accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

POLICE v EMERALI (useable amount)
“…the serious offence of … possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance”.

R v FORREST & FORREST (age)
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.

Question 34

Selling any Class C Controlled Drug to Person of or over 18 years

Answer 34

OXFORD DICTIONARY (offers)
Express readiness to do something for or on behalf of someone.

R v DURING (offers)
“[An offer is] an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by the statute”.

R v BROWN (offers)

1. offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
2. offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
3. offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
4. offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug

R v STRAWBRIDGE (guilty knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the
accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

POLICE v EMERALI (useable amount)
“…the serious offence of … possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance”.

R v FORREST & FORREST (age)
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.

Question 35

Possession of ay Controlled Drug for Supply

Answer 35

R V COX (possession)
Possession involves two elements. Phyiscal element is actual or potential physical custody or control. Mental element is a combination of knowledge and intention. They know the substance is in their possession and have an intention to exercise possession.

R v STRAWBRIDGE (guilty knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the
accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

R v MAGINNIS (supply)
Supply involves “more than the mere transfer of physical control … [it includes] enabling the recipient to apply the thing … to purposes for which he desires …”

R v DONALD (supply)
Includes the distribution of jointly owned property amongst co-owners.

R v KNOX (supply)
Giving also includes giving back.